Does the best team always win the league?

charlenefan

(Warning this thread may upset the Arsenal fans )

As per the title does the best team always win the league? I ask because in the event that Arsenal end up winning the title this season I think the answer has to be no

Looking back at recent seasons I dont think there is any doubt that Man Utd deserved to win the title in the 06/07 & 07/08 seasons but looking back in hindsight given the position they were in before Rafa's FAHCTS and the run and results they put together following their mid season blip I think you'd struggle to argue that maybe Liverpool deserved it last season (doing the double of both us and Chelsea as well as getting two draws against Arsenal, not to mention some of the trashing's they handed out at the end of the season to Villa and Blackburn) but this season to be perfectly honest despite the losses we've both had I think it would be somewhat of a travesty if either us or Chelsea didn't go on and win it considering just how far superior we've both been in our meetings with Arsenal (albeit not counting our home game against them)

All the pundits on TV are talking about Arsenal's run in being the easiest and how it's theirs to loose but surely the fact that they've been shown up so considerably against ourselves and Chelsea proves that if they do go on to win it it's because the fixture computer has been kind to them?

There's obviously a valid argument to be had that if they finish with more points than anyone else it proves that they've been more consistent than anyone else and haven't dropped as many silly points in games such as Burnley away or Villa at home (I wont use the games that Chelsea have dropped points in as Arsenal have either still to play some of those games or they're places where points can be dropped i.e. City and Everton away) but surely a counter argument to that is that again the fixture computer has been kind in the way that Arsenal have been able to build momentum by having large amount of 'easy' games all in one go.

Obviously all this could be pretty meaningless come May as Arsenal do still have tricky away games to Hull (who recently took points off of Chelsea) Birmingham (who both ourselves and Chelsea dropped points too), Wigan (where both Chelsea and Liverpool lost), the big derby away to Spurs, City at home and who knows maybe even Blackburn away (who both us and Chelsea need to go to) so they could quite easily still fall way short of the pace but if they dont and they do go on and win the league will they deserve it?

SharkyMcShark

Yes the best team always does win the league, despite what Rafa says.

Scoreboard Red

I thought we were better than Blackburn in 1995 but them winning it obviously proves they were a pretty good team.
Us losing Eric and having internal bollocks with Ince and Kanchelskis both acting like dicks didn't help either, but excuses, excuses...

Christofaux

If Arsenal win it, we were the best team, in the same way if chelsea or United win it they are the best team.

The winning squad is the squad over the season who did enough to win the league. As plain, straight forward and redundant as it sounds, its how the cookie crumbles.

kietotheworld

The idea that the best team in the League must win it is an absurd one. As a recent example, the chance that useless player for Wolves missed in the last minute against us, if it had gone in it would have cost us 2 points. If he had remained composed, would that make us a worse team, or Chelsea a better one? Of course not, but his missing or scoring could well decide who wins the League.

Before anybody cites any mistakes made by Chelsea to prove we are better, I should point out that the above is just an example. Despite what people who don't understand the law of averages will tell you, it is extremely unlikely, especially in a game such as football with so many elements of chance, that two teams will benefit exactly equally from all things out of their control (players dropping a bollock or playing outstanding matches, refs mistakes, weather, injuries etc.) and even if you don't accept that, you must accept there is a possibility that teams may lose points because of factors which have nothing to do with their quality, and those points can be sufficient to change the destiny of the league title.

Football is not an exact science and there's no way of quantifying how good teams are that's even remotely practical. The League table gives a guideline, no more.

Chapster

agreed
it's like saying winning this particular battle wins you the war, when in fact it's the net result of all the battles

Rowem

Of course not.

38 is not a magic number.

There are tons of variables over such a short period of time and small number of games.

And yes - 38 is a small number of games.

B Cantona

It is the magic number though, because it means you've played each team in the league once at their place, and once at your place. You can't get a fairer system for determining the best team in the country over the course of the season. And that's the key bit. Yes, the best team wins the league over the course of the season

The defition of what constitutes 'best' is probably the sticking point here

Rowem

I'm not questioning the fairness of the system - no doubt the team who wins is the most fair and deserving winner. But that doesn't necessarily make them the "best".

In CL group stages you play each team twice, but over a 6 game league the best team isn't guaranteed to win. Over a 38 game season the best team is far more likely to win, but it's still not a guarantee.

kietotheworld

So does the Wolves player missing an easy goal in the last minute on Saturday make us a better team or the rest of the League worse? I agree that there's no realistic fairer system, but its not perfectly accurate.

dumbo

Up there with the best of RAWK.

Team Brian GB

When you are soundly beaten by your closest rivals for the title four times you can't be considered the best team in the league.

dan_alex

I'd say a league table is the most effective way to measure the quality of a team and its performances over a season, and that the final league table is accurate to something like 95% accuracy of where a team deserves to be at the end of the season.

The 5% might be off due to discrepancies with refereeing, such as dodgy offside calls and sending off/not sending off decisions. Weather and dodgy pitches might hinder a truer reflection of the standings and also 38 games just not being enough over a season to make the league a 100% accurate depiction of where a team deserves to be.

F-Red

Yes the best team always wins the league.

kietotheworld

Explain why.

F-Red

The league winners are the ones with the most points, or if teams are drawn on points down to the Goals For & Against. That would say that on average throughout the season they've got the best results over the period of 38 games.

The table never lies.

SittingBull

Winning the league only means you have the best squad, but not necessarily the best team. The air of uncertainty over our pedigree has been the fact that we were not convincing against the big four teams in recent seasons. However, its 38 games over a long season, and everybody has a part to play. I have no doubt the league is the fairest way to determine a club's proficiency on the field, and there's nothing much to argue against that.

Scoreboard Red

In the 1982 World Cup, there was a team called Brazil who have since been known as the best team never to not win the World Cup, they were brilliant.
But they got beat in one match and were eliminated. Despite this, they were still probably the best team to win the World Cup.
In 1995, we beat Blackburn twice that season, and they also lost to the Scousers twice I believe. Yet they managed to beat all the other teams at least once, whereas United cocked up losing points to Wimbledon and Southampton for example. We were a more superior team but we also had issues in losing Eric and internal squabbles with Ince as I mentioned earlier.
The best teams don't always win the league, no.

Snow

What if a team lands in a position like Portsmouth or Juventus? How does that fit into your explanation F-Red?

Scoreboard Red

Great point, Inter Milan have almost asserted their own dynasty due to the indiscretions of the Juventus board.
Obviously a rare and default eample but a good one, none the less.

dumbo

winning the league means having the best record against the other 19 teams no more no less. Best team is a bullshit term.

Whoever gets most points deserves the title, no excuses, it's just being petty. Cups are different, where single games can count much more.

e.cantona

Everything in this world is black or white. You can ALWAYS say that something is right or wrong. It's as simple as that!!!

kietotheworld

Yeah, thanks for that mate, but I already know how the League works. An average over 38 games is nowhere near enough to say definitively who is the best, for reasons outlined above.

Team Brian GB

There is a difference between the best team and the most deserving, the latter of which wins the league but doesn't mean they were the best - Arsenal would be an example of this if they were to win the title by not being just beaten but by being made to look small against Man United and Chelsea.

Chapster

which is the point, if you don't beat those teams and it leads to you not winning the lead you can't claim to be the best

Avatar

Yes. Winning the cups is different, but definitely the way it works the league always pick up the better team.

SharkyMcShark

There is no such thing as a top 4 mini league.

Grinner

We're not even close to winning it yet and you lot are making excuses.

Too funny.

Rowem

To put who believe that the best team always wins the league:

Does the 4th best team always finish fourth? Or the 16th best team always finish 16th?

Lasagna springs to mind.

Wandering Red

Calling a team the "best" is subjective. Winning the league is objective, which is why it matters to people.

If you want to award style points as someone like Wenger wants, then go watch figure skating.

Scoreboard Red

Personally, I think the best team so far this season has been Chelsea, not just because they're a point ahead, they've played better.
Aside from this I think we're the better team if we wanted to be, or perhaps better SQUAD, but we're just not performing and the reason for this is I feel Chelsea have been working on an almost full capable squad with most of their players performing to their capabilities (although Cech has been scrutinised recently and Joe Cole has been and Ashley Cole is currently injured), whereas we have had Vidic and Ferdinand, Van Der Sar and Hargreaves out for several periods of the season, and have been working with only one fit and in-form striker. Owen and Berbatov haven't been fully fit or consistent all year.
Even if we manage to win the league this season, I will seriously believe we haven't been the best performing team due to our exploits thus far. In seasons past, United have always had hiccups to lower teams and what-not but have been consistently effective all season. Rather like last year, we seem to be cantering most of the time rather than be in first gear aside from the odd-game here and there, Arsenal being the prime example. We were great all year 1993-94, 1998-99, 2000-01 and 2007-08 but really were lacklustre and lethargic looking in 1996-97, 2008-09 and so far this year.
For me, there seems to be a trend. United are more effective when there's serious competition for them.
Blackburn won it in 1995, but let's get it right, Shearer and Flowers aside, they consisted of grafters and workhorses and won the league down to United's slip and lack of any other contention. Arsenal were shite, Liverpool were shite and the previous runners-up in the recent season's top four were QPR and Norwich for God's sake.
Arsenal in 1998-99 were defending champions and took us right down to the last day and were a great side, even better than the previous season in my view. This led to us upping our tempo and priorities and we duly won it.
Same thing with Chelsea in 2008, they were incredibly strong and probably only suffered due to an early change in management thats eason as they finished last-day runners up to us and in Europe.
Are we being challenged this season? Any other year and I think Chelsea would be ten points ahead. It shows we're not playing to our full capabilities when the top three are so close and lost so many at this stage. We could be ten ahead ourselves if it weren't for losses to Burnley, Villa, Fulham etc.

SharkyMcShark

There are no awards though for having a squad that in and of itself is considered good. The team that finishes fourth is the team that played fourth best that season.

Wandering Red

If they made all their "easy chances", it's unlikely they'd be 17th in the table. But that's how football is--not every team is top of the table material, and, well, there's a reason teams at the top tend to beat teams near the bottom.

You're right, it's not a perfect, foolproof system. But until somebody comes up with something better, it's the best we've got.

Scoreboard Red

I'm not making excuses, I think we'll win it this year.
But you know what, we've won it the last three years, I won't be utterly devastated if we did't win it this season, dissapointed but not heartbroke.
The best wins are the ones that come after you've not.
I'm not suggesting we go another 26 years without one just so that 27th attempt and subsequent victory is so much sweeter, but one of the best titles for me aside from that first in 1993 was 2007 after four years of not winning it. It felt great.

kietotheworld

So the answer to the question must be no then, agreed?

SharkyMcShark

The answer is yes. You can't just say oh he missed an open goal what bad luck. It is in the fact that a better player would have buried that chance that reveals two important things.

1. That's why Wolves are at the foot of the table. Because a better player would have buried it.

2. We aren't clear at the top because our defence has been shaky at times this year. We weren't punished because the lad misses where another player may have scored.

loki

The best team doesnt always win.
The most deserving team doesnt always win.
The team that wins is possibly one of the above, if not, they got there through being not too far behind the best team and having the 'rub of the green' go their way. That includes refereeing decisions, timing of matches after european ties, the split second difference between a foul and a legitimate tackle at a vital time, meeting teams on 'off' or 'on' days, meeting teams after fixture backlogs, injuries or not to key players and those of opposing teams, confidence and ability of squad players (and main team players), and pure luck in games with deflections most epecially games against rivals

Scoreboard Red

In that case, why are Arsenal third if their striker missed seven clear-cut opportunities on the weekend then scores a hat-trick this morning?
Things aren't so black and white mate.
We lost to West Ham in April 1992 when Gary Pallister cleared the ball and Kenny Brown had the ball hit his knee, his fucking knee, and it rebounded at speed past Schmeichel, BOOM! Goal, season over.

Rowem

I'm going to repeat the lasagne line in the hope that you just missed it.

There are tonnes of variables - some of which effect performance, some effect results, some effect both.

I don't particularly care who the "best" is. It's winning the title that matters.

But, logically, it is overly simplistic to say that the best team always wins the league. Whether or not the "best" team can even be determined is irrelevant - whats relevant is that the league, or any other competition, isn't a perfect and definitive answer.

Rowem

It's like claiming that the winner of every poker tournament played the best.