Premier League match discussion thread | 2014/15

RR's comments during the World Cup are becoming increasingly hilarious as the season goes on.

Tactical masterclass, IIRC. Balls of steel.

To be on par with Moyes' season so far, with a lack of CL games to contend with and the all-star players he's brought in..

He's not on par with Moyes' season though, is he?

Last year at this time United had 40 points, this year they have 44. It's not on par, it's four points better for a transfer spend of only £160m. That's only 40 million per extra point. 

Your method of comparison is absurd. It completely ignores the increased difficulty in accruing points this season in relation to last.

How are you even coming to that conclusion? Last season after 24 games you needed 47 points to be 4th. Right now you're 4th with 3 less points.

If anything the standard of other teams has lowered, making the job even easier. Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton and City are all a lot worse this year. Actually that's probably the only reason United are 4th as it stands. If getting points is more difficult for top teams it's because the top teams are worse, not because the lower teams are better.

And the average points per team last season after 24 games was 33.25. This season it's 32.6. So again, it's actually gotten weaker.

http://www.espnfc.com/barclays-premier-league/story/2291593/man-united-boss-louis-van-gaal-hits-back-at-sam-allardyce-with-tactics-dossier

Keyser Söze wrote:How are you even coming to that conclusion? Last season after 24 games you needed 47 points to be 4th. Right now you're 4th with 3 less points.

Yeah, because it's harder for the top sides to get points you can be 4th with less.

Zzonked wrote:If anything the standard of other teams has lowered, making the job even easier. Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton and City are all a lot worse this year. Actually that's probably the only reason United are 4th as it stands. If getting points is more difficult for top teams it's because the top teams are worse, not because the lower teams are better.

How could Arsenal possibly be worse? They've strengthened by buying one of the best players in the world and none of their important players are at an age where they'd decline except maybe Arteta. The League has got harder so they look worse, the same for City. Everton and Liverpool are actually worse, but Spurs, Saints and Chelsea are streets ahead of where they were last season. West Ham are also a much stronger side, and the rest of the Premier League continues to benefit from the difference in TV revenues decreasing proportionally meaning they can bring in better players.

Keyser Söze wrote:And the average points per team last season after 24 games was 33.25. This season it's 32.6. So again, it's actually gotten weaker.

You really don't understand what you're saying. All the average points per team being lower means is that there are more draws, which indicates that the level of quality is slightly closer between the teams. You can't draw anything whatsoever about the absolute strength of the league from that.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Zzonked wrote:If anything the standard of other teams has lowered, making the job even easier. Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton and City are all a lot worse this year. Actually that's probably the only reason United are 4th as it stands. If getting points is more difficult for top teams it's because the top teams are worse, not because the lower teams are better.

How could Arsenal possibly be worse?  They've strengthened by buying one of the best players in the world and none of their important players are at an age where they'd decline except maybe Arteta.  The League has got harder so they look worse, the same for City.  Everton and Liverpool are actually worse, but Spurs, Saints and Chelsea are streets ahead of where they were last season.  West Ham are also a much stronger side, and the rest of the Premier League continues to benefit from the difference in TV revenues decreasing proportionally meaning they can bring in better players.

Regarding Arsenal, does having a stronger team on paper always mean a stronger performance on the pitch? Real Madrid constantly buy the best players in the world but they don't always get stronger. The player performances haven't been as good.

I can't really be bothered arguing any more, just glad you're happy with the manager spending £40m per extra point.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:How are you even coming to that conclusion? Last season after 24 games you needed 47 points to be 4th. Right now you're 4th with 3 less points.

Yeah, because it's harder for the top sides to get points you can be 4th with less.

Zzonked wrote:If anything the standard of other teams has lowered, making the job even easier. Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton and City are all a lot worse this year. Actually that's probably the only reason United are 4th as it stands. If getting points is more difficult for top teams it's because the top teams are worse, not because the lower teams are better.

How could Arsenal possibly be worse?  They've strengthened by buying one of the best players in the world and none of their important players are at an age where they'd decline except maybe Arteta.  The League has got harder so they look worse, the same for City.  Everton and Liverpool are actually worse, but Spurs, Saints and Chelsea are streets ahead of where they were last season.  West Ham are also a much stronger side, and the rest of the Premier League continues to benefit from the difference in TV revenues decreasing proportionally meaning they can bring in better players.

Keyser Söze wrote:And the average points per team last season after 24 games was 33.25. This season it's 32.6. So again, it's actually gotten weaker.

You really don't understand what you're saying.  All the average points per team being lower means is that there are more draws, which indicates that the level of quality is slightly closer between the teams.  You can't draw anything whatsoever about the absolute strength of the league from that.

You're drawing that conclusion. You could just as easily say that you can get 4th this year with less points because the top teams have gotten worse so the standard for 4th is lower.

On your point about Arsenal, how is age the only factor? Lol. Can't believe that's a serious comment from you. So the only way a player can play worse is if he's at a certain age otherwise any perceived dip in quality actually means he's playing exactly the same except against better opposition?

I do understand what I'm saying. Obviously if the average is lower than it means more draws since it means 2 points have been lost to oblivion. The level of quality being closer between the teams doesn't indicate and improvement in the league, it means the better teams from last season have been dragged down to the level of the dross.

How are Spurs streets ahead of where they were last season? That's massive revisionism on your part. I think you're forgetting that bar the Chelsea win they've been pretty average, certainly not any better than last season. Drubbed by Liverpool, comfortably beaten at home by West Brom, very fortunate to come away with a draw against Arsenal, destroyed by City, deservedly beaten at home by a Newcastle team in horrendous form, played off the park by Stoke in another home defeat sandwiched between two very, very lucky and undeserved late wins against the shitty Hull and Villa. They probably just shaded Everton in their home win despite having less shots and possession, but followed it by being annihilated by Chelsea and totally dominated by Palace. Since then they've had a few more lucky late wins and probably only the West Brom, Chelsea and Arsenal wins were convincing victories.

Spurs are actually a perfect example of why the league is weaker, not playing any better than last season and actually 1 point worse off yet still within touching distance of the top 4.

In all honesty this is a pointless debate. The quality of teams in the PL is all relative to each other and because of that very fact you can't prove definitively beyond subjective opinion that shit teams have risen to the better teams standard or whether the better teams have dropped to the shitter teams standard. You've clearly got a vested interest in the league being supposedly "better" and "harder" because it makes it's more favourably for United and their dire season. I've got no problem being objective and saying that Arsenal have been worse this season because they are worse, and it's even more damning because they've been doing worse in a weaker season.

There are two options here

Option A
The Premier League has got stronger generally as a result of increased spending

Option B
Arsenal's acquisition of Alexis Sanchez and other transfer dealings have lead to a massive decline in performance despite such a drop being completely unpredictable based on the age profile of the squad or any other reliable performance metric

Manchester United's sacking of proven failure David Moyes and appointment of Louis Van Gaal, together with over £100m of player acquisitions has yielded close to zero improvements.

I know which one of these looks more credible to me. Believe what you want though.

What is this nonsensical correlation with spending and strength that you keep going back to? Southampton spent £100million less than you, why are they above you in the table?

In fees and wages alone this season you'll have spent nearly £100million on Di Maria and Falcao, have they combined even come close to making up for the lose in quality of Suarez? I thought you were better than this but your reasoning right now is on par with that suicidal freak JayBomb93 on EA.

Keyser actually makes me laugh when it's not me he's arguing with

Keyser Söze wrote:What is this nonsensical correlation with spending and strength that you keep going back to?   Southampton spent £100million less than you, why are they above you in the table?

In fees and wages alone this season you'll have spent nearly £100million on Di Maria and Falcao, have they combined even come close to making up for the lose in quality of Suarez? I thought you were better than this but your reasoning right now is on par with that suicidal freak JayBomb93 on EA.

If you think there's no correlation between spending and strength you're fucking retarded. Finding the odd exception doesn't disprove the correlation.

I don't know who that person is.

Scott don't even talk faggot you owe me $190

RR using typical retarded Mule League logic. Since the league as a whole spends more money, it's stronger!

I'm not saying there is no correlation, of course there is some. But read back over some of your ramblings over the last few posts and you'll see you've explicitly and definitively said that more money = more strength more or less all the time. That's fucking retarded. You act like a team costing peanuts didn't win La Liga over 38 games ahead of the two the greatest teams of this generation and come within seconds of winning the CL and annihilate Real 4-0 over the weekend. And Dortmund did it shortly before that. The 2009 Barcelona team, which is routinely sounded out as the greatest of all time, cost something like €90 million. You don't even need to look that far, this Manchester United is the most expensive squad in PL history yet they are hoof balling it in 4th. Fucking hell, can't believe I even have to explain this.

Keyser Söze wrote:I'm not saying there is no correlation, of course there is some. But read back over some of your ramblings over the last few posts and you'll see you've explicitly and definitively said that more money = more strength more or less all the time.

"More or less all the time" means "most of the time".  That is my position, it's my position because it's true.

You act like a team costing peanuts didn't win La Liga over 38 games ahead of the two the greatest teams of this generation and come within seconds of winning the CL and annihilate Real 4-0 over the weekend. And Dortmund did it shortly before that.

No I don't, freak results happen.

You're acting like City and Chelsea didn't go from not winning the league for about 50 years to winning two titles because of cash injections, like the Real side who beat Atletico to the Champions League didn't do it with hugely expensive players, like Bayern aren't the richest club in Germany by far and usually win the league there, like Juventus aren't the same in Italy and Inter and Milan's financial troubles haven't killed them off, like PSG aren't the best team in France because of cash, like the top 4 in England hasn't been practically impenetrable for fucking years because of the cash rewards for finishing in it and positive feedback loops that creates.  

In normal circumstances cash creates success.

The 2009 Barcelona team, which is routinely sounded out as the greatest of all time, cost something like €90 million.

They were the highest paid team in the fucking world and spent more than anyone else on their youth academy and scouring.  Obviously if you have a superstar generation you don't need to spend as much on transfers, but those superstar generations are extreme freak events.

You don't even need to look that far, this Manchester United is the most expensive squad in PL history yet they are hoof balling it in 4th. Fucking hell, can't believe I even have to explain this.        

A few exceptions to the rule over the several years you've drawn them from don't disprove the rule. For every exception there are dozens that follow the rule.  If you can't understand this then you are not intelligent enough for me to waste more time speaking with.  You don't understand statistics, I do, stop trying to prove me wrong and start trying to learn something.

Scott_LFC wrote:Keyser actually makes me laugh when it's not me he's arguing with

He's the Luis Suarez of online forums.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:"More or less all the time" means "most of the time".  That is my position, it's my position because it's true.

brb says he understand statistics
brb doesn't.

"Most" or "usually" in standard deviation is about 70%. "More or less" means "a small variation". If we take 100% to mean "all of the time" then "a small variation (more or less)" of 100% is something like 98% or even less. Maybe 95% at a stretch. Fuck, you could over exaggerate and go to 90%. Even still the two are not comparable in the slightest.    

ResurrectionRooney wrote:No I don't, freak results happen.

You're acting like City and Chelsea didn't go from not winning the league for about 50 years to winning two titles because of cash injections, like the Real side who beat Atletico to the Champions League didn't do it with hugely expensive players, like Bayern aren't the richest club in Germany by far and usually win the league there, like Juventus aren't the same in Italy and Inter and Milan's financial troubles haven't killed them off, like PSG aren't the best team in France because of cash, like the top 4 in England hasn't been practically impenetrable for fucking years because of the cash rewards for finishing in it and positive feedback loops that creates.  

In normal circumstances cash creates success.

Uh, I didn't saying anything to the contrary. I'm not sure what your reading comprehension level is but if it's on par with that of a 10 year old (which I assume it is) then you'd have picked up on this from my last post:

Keyser Soze wrote:I'm not saying there is no correlation, of course there is some.

What I argued against was you making out like it's definitive and happens all the time. It's not and it doesn't.

You mention Ligue 1. Lyon won Ligue 1 consecutively from 2001/02-2007/08 without being the highest spenders. Bordeaux and Lille have won it since then as well without being the highest spenders. Montpellier beat out a PSG squad costing over €100 million despite having a squad that cost less than €10 million and having an entire club budget of less than one PSG player. Fuck, Lyon currently lead Ligue 1 and were hard done by not to beat PSG over the weekend despite spending how much less than them over the last 4 years? Look it up.

You mention Bayern and the Bundesliga. In the 10 season from 2003/04-2012/14, Bayern, the so called "richest" and highest spending club in Germany, have been beaten to the title 4 times by clubs spending less than them.

Inter Milans haven't been killed off because they are poor. Shitty financial planning has hurt them. Under Mourinho they had too many old/ageing players on big contracts. They reached their peak under Mourinho and dipped there after. They didn't want leave other clubs for smaller wages and you can't exactly right off and bench 6-7 senior players. Also, you bring Inter Milan as if it doesn't prove my point    They've been spending heavily after being purchased by a man whose wealth is estimated at $25billion yet since 2011/12 they've been finishing behind teams that spend less.

In terms of the PL, with the most update data I have, in the 18 season leading up to and including 2009/10 the highest costing team has only won the PL 10 times, that 55%. And that's just about winning titles, they're countless instances of lower costing teams finishing above more expensive ones.

Since the turn of the millennium you have teams like Valencia(x2), Bayer Leverkusen, AS Monaco, Porto, Arsenal, Inter Milan, Dortmund and Athletico making it to CL finals. Ok, fair enough only two from that list have won it, but they've still gotten to the final ahead of numerous higher spending team. I don't have data on how much winning teams costs, but I'm sure that some of the winners will not have been the most expensively assembled teams.  

ResurrectionRooney wrote:They were the highest paid team in the fucking world and spent more than anyone else on their youth academy and scouring.  Obviously if you have a superstar generation you don't need to spend as much on transfers, but those superstar generations are extreme freak events.

Ok, factor in how much Barcelona spent on their academy and it'll still be less than some of the teams at around that period.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:A few exceptions to the rule over the several years you've drawn them from don't disprove the rule.  For every exception there are dozens that follow the rule.

Don't change your tune now. You're saying that spending more money almost all of the time guarantees success over all those that spend less and that any exception to that are "freak" results. Well I've just shown you that's not true. If I can cite all these examples then you're wrong. I've already said that more often than not money will bring success, no one is disputing that (if you think they are the rest assured no one is disputing that), but it's by no means the definitive rule. I don't even know why were are having this debate we were talking about how Manchester United, the most expensive club in PL, have been performing well below their monetary value. In your theory they could be the only "freak" occurrence and it still doesn't mitigate the fact they've spent a fortune and underperformed massively so I don't know why you are arguing.

To boil down success to such a spastic level of "durr my team cost more than your team so it must mean indisputably beyond a shadow of a doubt it's better" is something you'd hear in a fucking playground. I can't believe anyone with a brain developed at and beyond adolescenthood would say something like that. To be honest I don't think even you believe it, I think you made a retarded comment in the heat of the moment to back up United and you're just running with it to save face.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:If you can't understand this then you are not intelligent enough for me to waste more time speaking with.  You don't understand statistics, I do, stop trying to prove me wrong and start trying to learn something.

Stop trying so hard.

All you are doing here is completely misrepresenting me and knocking down straw man arguments.

To boil down success to such a spastic level of "durr my team cost more than your team so it must mean indisputably beyond a shadow of a doubt it's better" is something you'd hear in a fucking playground. I can't believe anyone with a brain developed at and beyond adolescenthood would say something like that. To be honest I don't think even you believe it, I think you made a retarded comment in the heat of the moment to back up United and you're just running with it to save face.

None of this bears any relation to anything I've ever said.

brb says he understand statistics
brb doesn't.

"Most" or "usually" in standard deviation is about 70%. "More or less" means "a small variation". If we take 100% to mean "all of the time" then "a small variation (more or less)" of 100% is something like 98% or even less. Maybe 95% at a stretch. Fuck, you could over exaggerate and go to 90%. Even still the two are not comparable in the slightest.    

You have completely made this up you cunt, and the fact you use the term "Over exaggerate" makes me think you're an even bigger cunt.

Inter won the Treble when their wage bill was bigger than their turnover.  Since then the owner has had to reduce his spending due to FFP, that's what's really fucking over the Milanese teams.

Lyon were able to succeed as they did because their financial planning was better than everyone else's.

Cup competitions are vulnerable to flukes, obviously.  There is no such team as Atletico.

Money correlates very strongly with the quality of teams, as the quality goes up and you get to the more extreme end of the scale, market forces have less influence which means there's more variation.  Football being a low scoring game luck also comes into play and protective market practices (ie. the transfer system) mean the effect is occasionally mitigated somewhat.  Sometimes you get freak occurrences with golden generations, novel tactics or strategies, or players who are widely severely underestimated for their value by the market or have been poorly advised and signed contracts that undervalue them.  In those cases teams can do a lot better than the financials suggest, but these are outliers. Nevertheless there is an extremely strong link between quality and money spent.

All that said, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is fair to assume that in terms of quality the Premier League would improve with an influx of money.

Hope this fucking helps.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:All you are doing here is completely misrepresenting me and knocking down straw man arguments.

Sweet. Nice vague statement just thrown out there that doesn't address anything. Really added to the overall debate  

ResurrectionRooney wrote:None of this bears any relation to anything I've ever said.

Yeah it does. You posted this:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:I'm not saying there is no correlation, of course there is some. But read back over some of your ramblings over the last few posts and you'll see you've explicitly and definitively said that more money = more strength more or less all the time.

"More or less all the time" means "most of the time".  That is my position, it's my position because it's true.

To infer that "more or less all of the time" a more expensive squad will be more success than a less expensive squad, which is what you did, is retarded and childish.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:You have completely made this up you cunt, and the fact you use the term "Over exaggerate" makes me think you're an even bigger cunt.

I didn't make anything up, stop crying. It's not my fault you've never actually studied statistics, if did then you wouldn't make such an asinine statement. Try looking up a fucking Bell curve.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Inter won the Treble when their wage bill was bigger than their turnover.  Since then the owner has had to reduce his spending due to FFP, that's what's really fucking over the Milanese teams.

What are you doing here? You're simply rewording what I already said  

Keyser Soze wrote:Shitty financial planning has hurt them. Under Mourinho they had too many old/ageing players on big contracts [....]They didn't want leave other clubs for smaller wages and you can't exactly right off and bench 6-7 senior players.

And even with Inter trying to reduce spending to comply with FFP they've still spent more than the teams above them.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Lyon were able to succeed as they did because their financial planning was better than everyone else's.

And, what's this, another attempt to reword what I said?   I don't care how good Lyon's financial planning was, they spent less and won the league that's the fucking point.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Cup competitions are vulnerable to flukes, obviously.  There is no such team as Atletico.

I never said they weren't, point still stands that these "flukes" happen with some frequency and as such you can't say that the highest spending team will always succeed over the lower spending ones. There is a club called Atletico, Atlético Madrid. I think you mean to highlight my slip of saying Athletico but in doing so made a slip of your own.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Money correlates very strongly with the quality of teams, as the quality goes up and you get to the more extreme end of the scale, market forces have less influence which means there's more variation.  Football being a low scoring game luck also comes into play and protective market practices (ie. the transfer system) mean the effect is occasionally mitigated somewhat.  Sometimes you get freak occurrences with golden generations, novel tactics or strategies, or players who are widely severely underestimated for their value by the market or have been poorly advised and signed contracts that undervalue them.  In those cases teams can do a lot better than the financials suggest, but these are outliers. Nevertheless there is an extremely strong link between quality and money spent.

Which is what we've been fucking telling you Glad you've back tracked and altered your opinion.

rekt

Keyser Söze wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:All you are doing here is completely misrepresenting me and knocking down straw man arguments.

Sweet. Nice vague statement just thrown out there that doesn't address anything. Really added to the overall debate  

It's true, you are inventing things I have never said and deliberately misinterpreting things I have said to make them disagree with you so I can knock them down.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:None of this bears any relation to anything I've ever said.

Yeah it does. You posted this:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:
"More or less all the time" means "most of the time".  That is my position, it's my position because it's true.

To infer that "more or less all of the time" a more expensive squad will be more success than a less expensive squad, which is what you did, is retarded and childish.

Most of the time they will.  How often depends on the degree of spending and the level of the market at which we're operating.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Lyon were able to succeed as they did because their financial planning was better than everyone else's.

And, what's this, another attempt to reword what I said?   I don't care how good Lyon's financial planning was, they spent less and won the league that's the fucking point.

Because of their novel tactics, as said.  Once the market wised up to them they couldn't win any more.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Cup competitions are vulnerable to flukes, obviously.  There is no such team as Atletico.

I never said they weren't, point still stands that these "flukes" happen with some frequency and as such you can't say that the highest spending team will always succeed over the lower spending ones. There is a club called Atletico, Atlético Madrid. I think you mean to highlight my slip of saying Athletico but in doing so made a slip of your own.

Good job I've never said that or implied it.  You've just inferred it.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Money correlates very strongly with the quality of teams, as the quality goes up and you get to the more extreme end of the scale, market forces have less influence which means there's more variation.  Football being a low scoring game luck also comes into play and protective market practices (ie. the transfer system) mean the effect is occasionally mitigated somewhat.  Sometimes you get freak occurrences with golden generations, novel tactics or strategies, or players who are widely severely underestimated for their value by the market or have been poorly advised and signed contracts that undervalue them.  In those cases teams can do a lot better than the financials suggest, but these are outliers. Nevertheless there is an extremely strong link between quality and money spent.

Which is what we've been fucking telling you Glad you've back tracked and altered your opinion.

This has always been my opinion.  Through stupidity or dishonesty you've misinterpreted it.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:I told you Allardyce was a good manager.

Hmm...

Scott Sinclair is playing like the player Brendan Rodgers educated so well at Swansea.

Welbeck has been excellent so far. It's a shame that parasite Giroud is on the score sheet and not him.

Fucking breathtaking by Ozil. If Sanchez had scored that then it'd be goal of the season.

Finally that nasty savage Matic gets punished.