Mancini to Johnson: You're not that good

menalawyerguy wrote:
If you did the math then you wouldn't need to ask the question since the criteria on what mid-table means is very clear.

Actually, I don't see where you've given your criteria in particular. Is it an average finish of between 8th and 12th? 9th to 10th? 6th to 14th? What is it?

Stop dodging the question and answer it. Yes or no.

This is like talking to a shoe. [/quote]

Its not my criteria, its common sense. There are 20 teams in the PL and mid-table would mean middle, meaning 10th out of 20. If Manchester City's average is 10.75 that is lower than 10 meaning they are lower than a mid-table team in exact terms.

I look at the PL as top half and bottom half clubs. Anything above 10th is top half and anything under is bottom half, but that doesn't mean bottom as in relegation.

I'm not dodging the question. I am simply showing you that you can answer the question based on the answers I have given.

AriseForLife wrote:If Manchester City has an average finishing place of 10.75 over the last 8 seasons and won three titles in a row that would bring their average position to 8.06 which would mean they are a top half team.

Danny B wrote:

menalawyerguy wrote:

AriseForLife wrote:If Manchester City has an average finishing place of 10.75 over the last 8 seasons and won three titles in a row that would bring their average position to 8.06 which would mean they are a top half team.

I didn't see this post.


So what is "mid-table" then? Slap on 10th? Just one mid-table team per year?

I've always considered mid-table to be about 8th to 12th (i.e. the middle section of the table).

Mid table's about 8th to 14th, depends on how far away you are from relegation at the end of the season if you finish around 15th for me

That sounds about right to me as well. But with that in conjunction with Arise's formula, Man City could win the next 3 titles and their average finish since rejoining the top flight would be just over 8. Thus, as three time defending champions, they'd still be a mid-table team. Retarded, right?

dupe

menalawyerguy wrote:

Danny B wrote:

menalawyerguy wrote:

AriseForLife wrote:If Manchester City has an average finishing place of 10.75 over the last 8 seasons and won three titles in a row that would bring their average position to 8.06 which would mean they are a top half team.

I didn't see this post.


So what is "mid-table" then? Slap on 10th? Just one mid-table team per year?

I've always considered mid-table to be about 8th to 12th (i.e. the middle section of the table).

Mid table's about 8th to 14th, depends on how far away you are from relegation at the end of the season if you finish around 15th for me

That sounds about right to me as well. But with that in conjunction with Arise's formula, Man City could win the next 3 titles and their average finish since rejoining the top flight would be just over 8. Thus, as three time defending champions, they'd still be a mid-table team. Retarded, right?

Yeah. But City are shite and won't win the league anyway

You're measuring things in terms of trophies and I am not talking about trophies at all. I am simply talking about table position and NOTHING more.

AriseForLife wrote:You're measuring things in terms of trophies and I am not talking about trophies at all. I am simply talking about table position and NOTHING more.

But how can you say a team is midtable when the squad is different to the others that actually finished 10th, it's all about making an asessment on their current players.

AriseForLife wrote:You're measuring things in terms of trophies and I am not talking about trophies at all. I am simply talking about table position and NOTHING more.

Yeah, but if City win 3 consecative titles and you still call them a mid table team...

You high?

For example.

IF and I mean a big IF, Manchester City were to win the next three PL titles and then didn't win another title for the next 10 years and finished 8th every season what would you consider them?

AriseForLife wrote:For example.

IF and I mean a big IF, Manchester City were to win the next three PL titles and then didn't win another title for the next 10 years and finished 8th every season what would you consider them?

At the time they're winning titles: Champions, best team in England, etc...

In a slump afterwards: Mid table

They can't be mid table when they're winning the league

[quote="AriseForLife"]

menalawyerguy wrote:

Its not my criteria, its common sense. There are 20 teams in the PL and mid-table would mean middle, meaning 10th out of 20. If Manchester City's average is 10.75 that is lower than 10 meaning they are lower than a mid-table team in exact terms.

I look at the PL as top half and bottom half clubs. Anything above 10th is top half and anything under is bottom half, but that doesn't mean bottom as in relegation.

I'm not dodging the question. I am simply showing you that you can answer the question based on the answers I have given.

Actually, you never said that you consider mid-table as 10th and only 10th.

So the team that finishes 10th is top half but also mid-table? Is this coming from the same place of logic that had you arguing that strikers aren't attackers? (that was you right? Apologies if that was somebody else).

For the 3 seasons they were top they'd be more then mid table, then after a few seasons of being 8th I'd class them back as a mid table team. Pretty simple really....

kyro7 wrote:
But how can you say a team is midtable when the squad is different to the others that actually finished 10th, it's all about making an asessment on their current players.

YOU are focusing on singular squads. I am talking about Manchester City the club in its entirety. You don't just exclude previous years because a manager is different or the team is different. I am talking about Manchester City's time spent in the PL.

Danny B wrote:

AriseForLife wrote:You're measuring things in terms of trophies and I am not talking about trophies at all. I am simply talking about table position and NOTHING more.

Yeah, but if City win 3 consecative titles and you still call them a mid table team...

You high?

Again, I never said anything about winning titles etc. I am specifically talking about TABLE POSITION.

AriseForLife wrote:For example.

IF and I mean a big IF, Manchester City were to win the next three PL titles and then didn't win another title for the next 10 years and finished 8th every season what would you consider them?

I'd consider them the best mother fucking team in the league. Hands down. No debate, no doubt.

I'm not as static as you are. If a team wins three titles in a row, they're not mid table. They're not even top half (doesn't do them justice). They're just the best fucking team in the league without question.

AriseForLife wrote:

kyro7 wrote:
But how can you say a team is midtable when the squad is different to the others that actually finished 10th, it's all about making an asessment on their current players.

YOU are focusing on singular squads. I am talking about Manchester City the club in its entirety. You don't just exclude previous years because a manager is different or the team is different. I am talking about Manchester City's time spent in the PL.

Well you're just wasting your time because it makes no difference to City now who are much better than mid table.

Danny B wrote:

menalawyerguy wrote:

Danny B wrote:

menalawyerguy wrote:

AriseForLife wrote:If Manchester City has an average finishing place of 10.75 over the last 8 seasons and won three titles in a row that would bring their average position to 8.06 which would mean they are a top half team.

I didn't see this post.


So what is "mid-table" then? Slap on 10th? Just one mid-table team per year?

I've always considered mid-table to be about 8th to 12th (i.e. the middle section of the table).

Mid table's about 8th to 14th, depends on how far away you are from relegation at the end of the season if you finish around 15th for me

That sounds about right to me as well. But with that in conjunction with Arise's formula, Man City could win the next 3 titles and their average finish since rejoining the top flight would be just over 8. Thus, as three time defending champions, they'd still be a mid-table team. Retarded, right?

Yeah. But City are shite and won't win the league anyway

True. This whole convo is moot. And more important, totally pointless (as most convos with Arise seem to be )

menalawyerguy wrote:Actually, you never said that you consider mid-table as 10th and only 10th.

So the team that finishes 10th is top half but also mid-table? Is this coming from the same place of logic that you had you arguing that strikers aren't attackers? (that was you right? Apologies if that was somebody else).

Why would I need to say something that you should have learned in elementary school. Mid is short for middle and 10 is half of 20 which is the middle point. It's common sense.

What does what I said about strikers have to do with anything being discussed now? No point in bringing up irrelevant things. Stick to the point at hand.

kyro7 wrote:[
Well you're just wasting your time because it makes no difference to City now who are much better than mid table.

Well that is your opinion and you are welcome to it.

AriseForLife wrote:

kyro7 wrote:[
Well you're just wasting your time because it makes no difference to City now who are much better than mid table.

Well that is your opinion and you are welcome to it.

What a load of shit.

Again. You are entitled to feel whatever makes you happy.

AriseForLife wrote:

menalawyerguy wrote:Actually, you never said that you consider mid-table as 10th and only 10th.

So the team that finishes 10th is top half but also mid-table? Is this coming from the same place of logic that you had you arguing that strikers aren't attackers? (that was you right? Apologies if that was somebody else).

Why would I need to say something that you should have learned in elementary school. Mid is short for middle and 10 is half of 20 which is the middle point. It's common sense.

Jesus Christ, you have got to be the most anal retentive twat I've ever come across. We're not talking so fucking rigidly, Einstein. Under your rigid house rules, the team that finishes 10th is mid table (and the only fucking mid table team in the entire league that year) and also top half. But when you say that outloud, people laugh their asses off because it sounds fucking retarded. Most people are a little more flexible.

For example, if you put the table into three sections (top, middle and bottom, leaving aside that 20 doesn't divide by 3 in whole terms), then you have top being 1 through 6 or 7, middle being 7/8 through 13/14, and bottom being 14/15 through 20. Makes more sense.

What does what I said about strikers have to do with anything being discussed now? No point in bringing up irrelevant things. Stick to the point at hand.

I'm just curious if the same retarded use of logic you used in that scenario is being employed here. Because if it is, this is an utter waste of my time.

AriseForLife wrote:Again. You are entitled to feel whatever makes you happy.

You're talking bull mate

This whole exchange just shows that it is actually you that is anal. You are putting way too much effort and thought into this.

I am saying mid-table team in a general sense. I am not breaking down the entire ranking of the PL over the last 8 seasons.

I am simply saying that Manchester City has an average finishing of 10.75 which means their PL history shows they are a mid-table team.

Nothing more, nothing less. You on the other hand are taking this information way beyond my simple sentence. I am not looking at the table as a whole and averaging out every club like you are.

If someone were to say that Manchester City is a top 4 club you would probably agree where as I would disagree because their results have proven that they average a finishing around the middle of the table.

Actually, come to think of it, your interpretation is dumber than I thought. Because when the number of teams is an even number, there is no one whole number that is right in the middle.

10 isn't the middle, because there are 9 teams better than 10th, but 11 teams worse than 10th.

11th isn't the middle because there are 10 teams better than 11th, and 9 worse than 11th.

No perfect middle. So if you want to be insanely rigid with this, there's no such thing as a mid-table team. haha Retarded

'Strikers aren't attackers' or whatevs.

AriseForLife wrote:This whole exchange just shows that it is actually you that is anal. You are putting way too much effort and thought into this.

I am saying mid-table team in a general sense. I am not breaking down the entire ranking of the PL over the last 8 seasons.

I am simply saying that Manchester City has an average finishing of 10.75 which means their PL history shows they are a mid-table team.

Nothing more, nothing less. You on the other hand are taking this information way beyond my simple sentence. I am not looking at the table as a whole and averaging out every club like you are.

If someone were to say that Manchester City is a top 4 club you would probably agree where as I would disagree because their results have proven that they average a finishing around the middle of the table.

lolololol you said anal.

AriseForLife wrote:
If someone were to say that Manchester City is a top 4 club you would probably agree where as I would disagree because their results have proven that they average a finishing around the middle of the table.

No, I wouldn't agree. They haven't finished top 4 in ages. So I wouldn't call them top 4. If they won three titles in a row, I would call them top 4. Fuck, I'd call them top 1. But you'd call them "top half" because of an average over a long term. You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. It's just retarded.

AriseForLife wrote:This whole exchange just shows that it is actually you that is anal. You are putting way too much effort and thought into this.

I am saying mid-table team in a general sense. I am not breaking down the entire ranking of the PL over the last 8 seasons.

I am simply saying that Manchester City has an average finishing of 10.75 which means their PL history shows they are a mid-table team.

Nothing more, nothing less. You on the other hand are taking this information way beyond my simple sentence. I am not looking at the table as a whole and averaging out every club like you are.

If someone were to say that Manchester City is a top 4 club you would probably agree where as I would disagree because their results have proven that they average a finishing around the middle of the table.

When talking about teams as a "top 4 club" or whatever, they base it on the previous season, or even this season, not the past 8

menalawyerguy wrote:Actually, come to think of it, your interpretation is dumber than I thought. Because when the number of teams is an even number, there is no one whole number that is right in the middle.

10 isn't the middle, because there are 9 teams better than 10th, but 11 teams worse than 10th.

11th isn't the middle because there are 10 teams better than 11th, and 9 worse than 11th.

No perfect middle. So if you want to be insanely rigid with this, there's no such thing as a mid-table team. haha Retarded

Further proof that my aforementioned statement is 100% accurate.

menalawyerguy wrote:

AriseForLife wrote:
If someone were to say that Manchester City is a top 4 club you would probably agree where as I would disagree because their results have proven that they average a finishing around the middle of the table.

No, I wouldn't agree. They haven't finished top 4 in ages. So I wouldn't call them top 4. If they won three titles in a row, I would call them top 4. Fuck, I'd call them top 1. [b]But you'd call them "top half" because of an average over a long term[b/]. You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. It's just retarded.

No, I wouldn't call them top half. With each post you are proving to me more and more than you haven't understood a single thing I have typed in this entire exchange. You're so focused on titles and what not and over thinking what has been said that you are completely failing to see what I am saying.

The ONLY THING I AM TALKING ABOUT is table position. I really don't know how else to say it. You keep using the word retarded, yet you're the one that is too ignorant to see that I am talking about a singular thing and nothing more.

Danny B wrote:When talking about teams as a "top 4 club" or whatever, they base it on the previous season, or even this season, not the past 8

As a Liverpool supporter you should know that isn't true. Many of your clubs supporters were still calling Liverpool a top 4 club in the PL as recent as last season and many still believe they are one of the four top clubs in the PL.

Maybe you base it off the previous season or the current season, but the statement top 4 implies consistency over time.