Some of the logic in here is so baffling at times?? The lengths that the Ole detractors will go to just to rationalize their contempt is just bizarre.
Would you sack or keep Ole? (Poll reopened)
- Thread starter MrSingh2002
- Start date
- Status
It's like saying car is more expensive today compared to 1960 because today it costs €20,000 vs €2,000 back then.... a meaningless comparison...I am sorry. if you cannot comprehend simple math!
81 >79. If you argue with that, you canhow much ever you want!
Can you actually quote me on that?. I said they performed better. Hypothetically, had Jose's team won the league which won was better, how would you compare if not for points?
I'd take a break if I were you.
Ok.
You're arguing that Jose's team performed better than Ferguson's team, when Ferguson's team was the one that won the league. Maybe league strength is relative, and varies year by year, and your final position says more about your strength relative to your opponents than points or number of wins?
I agree it is a moot point to compare teams across different eras. BUT, if we were to do it, Points are the only standard.
Number of points are only an indicator of how strong you are relative to the rest of your league though. It doesn't show how strong or weak the league actually is.
Ferguson won the treble. They played sht in the CL final because Keane and Scholes were banned. Bayern bossed the midfield. Were unlucky not to win. But if United had the full team I believe that they would have won outright quite comfortably.
Last edited:
Would you mind explaining why the only metric capable of comparing teams from different eras is points?
I'm genuinely curious to see what you come up with.
Points are the simplistic way of seeing how many teams you have beaten to get there.You can only win whats in front of you, so the relative strength of the league is hard to agree upon.
If there are better metrics, I am all ears.
You dodged my question.
No, I ignored it.
The bolded makes no sense. How do you measure the relative strength of the league in the first place?
I don't believe an accurate way to measure teams from separate eras exists due to the sheer number of variables involved. But that's just my opinion
So you are saying the 17/18 united were better than treble winning side?I am sorry. if you cannot comprehend simple math!
81 >79. If you argue with that, you can
Would you agree that the 2005-06 Pool side > current city side?I am sorry. if you cannot comprehend simple math!
81 >79. If you argue with that, you can
How about last year's Utd side is better than 2004-05 Pool side (that won CL)?
Maybe even Southampton under Koeman > 2004-05 pool side as well?
Would you agree 99-00 United is better than 98-99 United? (in terms of the league alone?)
I don't give a feck about points. As per your logic the current Pool side is the 2nd greatest PL team ever, which I find laughable
The point obsession is a weird one and started mostly by the scouse because of their league campaign. Like Roy Keane says you only get one medal so who cares if a team has 99 points or 81 points as long as you get the PL. Similarly how does it even matter if 66 points 10 seasons ago would have been not enough to get to the 3rd position. We finished 3rd this season and that's what counts.
Mate, I was in stitches earlier
Got to be a wind-up
Hard to do so, especially between different eras, but within just a few years you can also do a running mean (or just the mean of the last few years).
Additionally, you can normalize them by dividing with the number of points of the champions. In which case, we get 66.67% this season but got 81% in Jose's second season. And obviously, we got 100% in the mentioned treble season. Of course, this does not measure in the first place how good were the champions.
I think that easily comparing with the mean of the last few seasons is the best way. The quality of the league cannot change that much within 2-3 seasons after all.
This is true but I fear many on here have shown they have next to no understanding of stats and/or willingness to apply them correctly.
Simply put, you can use recent data i.e. PL seasons to gauge and compare us across seasons. It goes against the narrative of the top reds and other such elements, so they start writing some serious straw man arguments based on comparisons over 20 years which is 2 lifetimes of a professional footballer's career.
What are you talking about?
Top reds writing straw man arguments?
Someone wrote about pts totals and was asked a question which he answered in the absurd. He really should have said it's a stupid question, which it was.
Your straw man is a straw man for jaysus sake.
I don't even know what to say.
Two years (three at a push) would be the maximum with which to draw a relatively fair comparison between two sides from separate eras, in my opinion, and that's assuming bots sides made minimal changes to their starting elevens. There are too many factors to weigh up the further they are apart.
Well, at least the last thing I read tonight will ensure I’m giggling in my sleep all night...as long as I can stop guffawing long enough to fall asleep that is...
You are right about that '99 team in 2018, their average age would be like 45-50 years then, and they wouldn't stand a chance..
I agree. You can probably go a bit longer, but it needs to be weighted less. This is why I think that it is perfectly justifiable to compare with Mourinho's season, not that justifiable with Moyes' season, and comparing teams from now with United in 1999 based on points is a total nonsense.
It has been going for some time now. Someone mentions the number of points and says that in a normal season (for example the last 2-3 years) it would not have been enough to qualify for UCL. Then some top red replies by ah, so by the same logic 'X' team was better than United 1999, gotcha. Which is total nonsense, no one (except @bleedred) is arguing anything like that when we use the total number of points.
Essentially, comparing the league within a few seasons is perfectly valid, comparing it from different eras, is not. Same for players, you can compare Ronaldo with Ronaldinho, but if you compare Ronaldo with Pele, so much has changed that makes no sense to do so.
If you remove your red tinted spectacles, you would find that's the truth. If you are arguing that a team that won 32/38 games isn't one of the best, then you are clearly biased.
I am sorry man but I really need a VAR-decision on that comment!I am sorry. if you cannot comprehend simple math!
81 >79. If you argue with that, you can
Agree.
But, at a push, wouldn't you say that a team that wins 35 games in a season and finishes second has performed better than a team that finishes first with 25 wins, irrespective of the eras?
Nevermind eras, if I were to ask you which team of United was better in the league, 99 or '00. what criteria would you determine that?
Sides that would rightly be considered as better than the current Pool side:
1. Utd treble winners
2. Utd European double winners
3. City domestic treble winners
4. Arsenal Invincibles
5. City 100 point side
To go down as a great team, you need to be dominant in either multiple competitions or do something that has rarely ever been done. In the above list, I'm not even including teams that have done a domestic double or managed to defend their title. At the end of the day, you get just a single medal for winning the title. It doesn't have points engraved on it. And last I checked, only the names of winners of PL is engraved on the trophy and not the points the team won in the title winning campaign
I see what you're getting at but the sudden obsession with points totals is baffling to many.
The fact that Mourinho is often brought up in the same breath tends to undermine the point being made aswell as it ignores all the reasons people why were rightfully pissed off with him.
This is the Ole out thread after all so criticism of him in here will always be viewed through that prism and maybe I'm wrong but I think it's likely to get more backlash in here then if it was posted in the Ole Performance thread.
I also don't see why are people who disagree with using points totals in what seems to be the latest in a long line of reasons to undermine the manager are being categorised as 'top reds'
I understand that its a symptom of how toxic this thread has gotten but I think it's unnecessary.
Ok.
In all honestly, I think that neither of those teams was better than Liverpool. I think that the United 2007-2008 (or even 2008-2009) would be very competitive against this Liverpool and it could have gone either way, the same for City's 100 point side. I think that Utd treble winners and Arsenal invincibles were nowhere as good.
Of course, the United 99 is greater than this Liverpool side, the same as how Pepe is a greater player than C. Ronaldo because after all, achievements matter. But neither United 99 was better than current Liverpool, nor Pele was a better player than Ronaldo. At the same time, the achievements are not the only thing that matters, Chelsea 2012 is not one of the top 12 English sides of all time just because they are one of the 12 English teams that became European champions. Context really matters!
- Status