Premier League Gameweek 27

[AshRK]

Over the two seasons 07/08 and 08/09 when United won the league twice, we failed to win 10 or more games in both of them - we scored 68 and 80 goals respectively, not... insane. There were no City and Spurs competing back then, but in the top ten you had Villa, Blackburn and Portsmouth... as well as Derby, Sunderland, Boro, Hull and Wigan at the bottom. Liverpool will perhaps end up at 3 or 4 games that are not won this year and around 90 goals, depending on their motivation and what happens in the CL. Any given team will only play another (potentially great) team twice, there are 36 other games to play as well and plenty of banana skins. What they are doing this year is potentially unbeatable, as much as it hurts to admit

The united team of those two season knew how to win just like this Liverpool side but we had a good depth in comparison tot his Liverpool side. And again I will sound repetitive but the league was much harder. Yes there were no City, but there were other formidable teams who would pose more threat than the current lot. The current Arsenal side or even the United side are just bug by name but their performance is of a genuinely midtable side. Spurs, well are no good either and are matching Spurs from then or maybe are even worse. The ARsenal, chelsea or even the Liverpool side from that era were very good and much better than the 3rd/4th/5th side from this season.

City pretty much did the same for 2 seasons and now Liverpool are doing the same, doesn't that more about the league in general.

 

[Stocar]

Liverpool and City have won huge points totals in recent seasons. But not in the same fashion. Liverpool, while being a great team, have overachieved. City's points tallies were a realistic reflection of the quality of their game. This is not merely a subjective impression: difference in underlying numbers is huge, and Liverpool are overachieving on an absurd level.

'League table doesn't lie' shouldn't be taken too literally. Football is too volatile and unpredictable for that. League table is far more reliable for judging quality than any cup competition, but not perfect by any means. Sometimes teams catch (or get caught in) the momentum and bizzare sequences emerge.

So, points total doesn't necessarily tell the whole story. Teams adapt to new trends. This also doesn't mean that the league was stronger before. What happened in recent seasons may well just be a perfect storm of Chelsea having their own perfect season of overachievement, City setting new standards, and Liverpool answering it by catching the mother-of-all-momentums. It may as well change, with more teams evened out at the top in next seasons.

 

[Dumbstar]

Liverpool and City have won huge points totals in recent seasons. But not in the same fashion. Liverpool, while being a great team, have overachieved. City's points tallies were a realistic reflection of the quality of their game. This is not merely a subjective impression: difference in underlying numbers is huge, and Liverpool are overachieving on an absurd level.

'League table doesn't lie' shouldn't be taken too literally. Football is too volatile and unpredictable for that. League table is far more reliable for judging quality than any cup competition, but not perfect by any means. Sometimes teams catch (or get caught in) the momentum and bizzare sequences emerge.

So, points total doesn't necessarily tell the whole story. Teams adapt to new trends. This also doesn't mean that the league was stronger before. What happened in recent seasons may well just be a perfect storm of Chelsea having their own perfect season of overachievement, City setting new standards, and Liverpool answering it by catching the mother-of-all-momentums. It may as well change, with more teams evened out at the top in next seasons.

This is some bizarre sequence. All flukes, and lucks, and absurdities, and poor PL, and mother of all jammy momentums:

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWDWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

But don't you just love looking at it?

 

[sebsheep]

This is some bizarre sequence. All flukes, and lucks, and absurdities, and poor PL, and mother of all jammy momentums:

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWDWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

But don't you just love looking at it?

To be fair, the part about the points total not telling the whole story and not necessarily meaning teams right now are better than past ones does have some merit to it. However, you can only beat who you come up against so past/present comparisons are almost pointless to try to judge (not that I'm against any discussion on them).
Liverpool are so far ahead of everyone else because they're just a very good team and very consistent and the times they don't play that well they maintain the desire and the belief that they can still win those games. They have the quality and the mentality of champions. Every team has a bit of luck here or there, some more than others but that is not why this Liverpool team are doing so well. I don't like it, but that's the way I see it.

 

[Stocar]

This is some bizarre sequence. All flukes, and lucks, and absurdities, and poor PL, and mother of all jammy momentums

Agree with everything except bolded. And regardless of everything going their way, only an exceptional team would manage to achieve this record in such a strong league. But it is still an overachievement that doesn't exactly correspond to what is happening on the pitch. Which often doesn't matter that much for fans, I guess.

 

[Dumbstar]

Agree with everything except bolded. And regardless of everything going their way, only an exceptional team would manage to achieve this record in such a strong league. But it is still an overachievement that doesn't exactly correspond to what is happening on the pitch. Which often doesn't matter that much for fans, I guess.

All those dubyas are a once in a generation if not once in a lifetime scenario. Of course it's going to be an overachievement whether it's Liverpool, peak City or peak Pep Barcelona.

 

[Stocar]

All those dubyas are a once in a generation if not once in a lifetime scenario. Of course it's going to be an overachievement whether it's Liverpool, peak City or peak Pep Barcelona.

Peak Barcelona or City didn't have (and didn't need to have) flukes and gifts on regular basis. They won routinely and convincingly, because their played better football. They didn't really overachieve. I also don't see this Liverpool side matching their trophy haul.

 

[PickledRed]

Peak Barcelona or City didn't have (and didn't need to have) flukes and gifts on regular basis.

Regular basis...

Honestly, grown men with this stuff...still. 106/108 points and we’re still doing the flukes and gifts.

Fair play

 

[Dumbstar]

Regular basis...

Honestly, grown men with this stuff...still. 106/108 points and we’re still doing the flukes and gifts.

Fair play

Enjoy it while we can. I've only dreamt about reading stuff like this. For a long time actually.

 

[Stocar]

106/108 points and we’re still doing the flukes and gifts.

You really think this Liverpool side are realistically 106/108 points good? Or that Madrid are the best side ever because they won three consecutive European titles? Why do you think bookmakers still have City (objectively failing to match their standards of previous seasons, and currently 22 points behind Liverpool), as favourites in Europe? I can understand fans enjoying their team doing great, but can't comprehend how anyone with reasonable football insight can think that Liverpool are as good as City at their best. It never looked like that on the pitch, and it's not just a subjective impression.

 

[PickledRed]

You really think this Liverpool side are realistically 106/108 points good? Or that Madrid are the best side ever because they won three consecutive European titles? Why do you think bookmakers still have City (objectively failing to match their standards of previous seasons, and currently 22 points behind Liverpool), as favourites in Europe? I can understand fans enjoying their team doing great, but can't comprehend how anyone with reasonable football insight can think that Liverpool are as good as City at their best. It never looked like that on the pitch, and it's not just a subjective impression.

Not subjective?

Well the objective empirical evidence indicates that Liverpool are '106/108 points good'' - you're imposing selective evidence to suit a subjective perspective - the perspective of a rival fan. Why are City's odds for the Champions League somehow more prevalent than the reality of the league table or Liverpool's incredible run over the previous 12 months or so? A run that's seen them outstrip City considerably.

When discussing 'best teams' there seems to me a disproportionate emphasis given to attacking flair - which City have in bucket loads - as opposed to efficiency and will to win which Liverpool are far better at which is why they're top of the league by a street.

To characterise Liverpool's supremacy as being down to 'flukes and gaffs' is just nonsense. Subjective nonsense.

 

[Siorac]

Peak Barcelona or City didn't have (and didn't need to have) flukes and gifts on regular basis. They won routinely and convincingly, because their played better football. They didn't really overachieve. I also don't see this Liverpool side matching their trophy haul.

Guardiola's Barcelona barely squeaked past Chelsea in the 2009 CL semi-final, in a highly controversial match (to say the very least). They needed a contentious red card (though I think it was deserved) to break the deadlock at Real Madrid in the 2011 semi-final.

Yeah, I do think that Barcelona side were better than this Liverpool team - I mean, Xavi, Iniesta and Messi in the same team is just cheating, no Liverpool player comes close to them in terms of individual quality - but the idea that they didn't need flukes or gifts is simply not true. Even exceptional teams need those, otherwise they will be remembered as great teams that failed to fulfil their potential.

 

[Stocar]

Not subjective?

Well the objective empirical evidence indicates that Liverpool are '106/108 points good'' - you're imposing selective evidence to suit a subjective perspective - the perspective of a rival fan. Why are City's odds for the Champions League somehow more prevalent than the reality of the league table or Liverpool's incredible run over the previous 12 months or so? A run that's seen them outstrip City considerably.

When discussing 'best teams' there seems to me a disproportionate emphasis given to attacking flair - which City have in bucket loads - as opposed to efficiency and will to win which Liverpool are far better at which is why they're top of the league by a street.

To characterise Liverpool's supremacy as being down to 'flukes and gaffs' is just nonsense. Subjective nonsense.

So, what's your take on these odds? It seems outright bizarre that this super dominant, supposedly 'best EPL side ever' are not properly recognized as such, not even remotely.

 

[Stocar]

Yeah, I do think that Barcelona side were better than this Liverpool team - I mean, Xavi, Iniesta and Messi in the same team is just cheating, no Liverpool player comes close to them in terms of individual quality - but the idea that they didn't need flukes or gifts is simply not true. Even exceptional teams need those, otherwise they will be remembered as great teams that failed to fulfil their potential.

Sure, football is just that kind of game. But not every team gets the same amount of fortunate breaks. If anything, that Barcelona side were so dominant that they arguably should have won more in Europe, and they had things going against them in seasons when they went out. Liverpool will probably also better their points total this season, in arguably more difficult league. Great achievement, but results in football can be quite deceptive. That Barcelona team was on a different level.

 

[Siorac]

Sure, football is just that kind of game. But not every team gets the same amount of fortunate breaks. If anything, that Barcelona side were so dominant that they arguably should have won more in Europe, and they had things going against them in seasons when they went out. Liverpool will probably also better their points total this season, in arguably more difficult league. Great achievement, but results in football can be quite deceptive. That Barcelona team was on a different level.

I personally haven't given up hope that the entire league gets cancelled due to the coronavirus.

 

[PickledRed]

So, what's your take on these odds? It seems outright bizarre that this super dominant, supposedly 'best EPL side ever' are not properly recognized as such, not even remotely.

Reasons: The emerging narrative during the season is that Liverpool are prioritising the league while City are prioritising the CL; presumably that's informed punters' betting patterns. More money on City to win the CL means that their odds will be shorter. Also, Liverpool are 1-0 down after the first leg. If City lose tonight their odds will be longer.

 

[Stocar]

Reasons: The emerging narrative during the season is that Liverpool are prioritising the league while City are prioritising the CL; presumably that's informed punters' betting patterns. More money on City to win the CL means that their odds will be shorter. Also, Liverpool are 1-0 down after the first leg. If City lose tonight their odds will be longer.

I'm sure you don't really believe in these explanations yourself, as they're quite hilarious. That's not how it works. We had this discussion in some other thread, with people who know their betting stuff weighing in. Those who make the odds simply see City as the better team, even this year. (The odds were either same or a bit shorter on City before the Atletico match.)

Popular narratives and punters betting patterns don't have much influence in shaping these odds. But even if they had, then it would certainly go in Liverpool's favour. The strongest narrative currently is that about glorious European champions and 'the best EPL side ever' (that have already secured the league title btw). If anything, more people are betting on Liverpool, as people in general are more influenced by popular narratives and Liverpool also have a large fan base.

It doesn't matter anyway, people who make these odds don't operate on popular narratives level, unlike fans and journalists. And if the league started tomorrow, I'm fairly certain they would have City as favourites (probably not by much, but still). Because they're essentially the better team.

 

[PickledRed]

I'm sure you don't really believe in these explanations yourself,

I'm sorry, I'm being lectured about believable explanations from someone who is trying to suggest Liverpool are in their position because of flukes and gaffs.

Sounds legit.

 

[PickledRed]

I'm fairly certain they would have City as favourites (probably not by much, but still). Because they're essentially the better team.

Better team who haven't won more than three consecutive games in the league all season; lose quite regularly and have a poor defence. Better team though.

This is gold.

 

[Robaldo]

The table lies over 38 games? Not what I've been told on Redcafe for the past 18 years. In fact, the opposite.

Lul.