To be fair to Chelsea, their second XI could probably challenge for a Champions League place. Their squad depth is unrivalled.
If we get turned over by City and Chelsea in coming games, it's curtains for our title chances.
===
This is exactly what I'm talking about - no, no it is not curtains for our title chances. We are a stronger side than before and that includes mentally. We didn't let the Dortmund or United games affect us against Cardiff, the reverse fixture against Dortmund or Southampton, teams who are no pushovers, and we will not crumble if we lose to City or Chelsea.
Have some belief in your team for gods' sake.
the league cup gain was not our 1st team, but it showed how difficult Chelsea could be if we let them score first. We need them to come at us, and Jose will only ask the team to do that if we go ahead.
I agree with op.
We lost to Man U but since we have accumulated 6 points and united 2 points.
3 points is 3 points regardless of the opposition.
As for Chelsea, they will be massive favourites for the league.
They have probably the best squad in the league and can even afford to have the likes of Lukaku out on loan
This is exactly what I'm talking
about - no, no it is not curtains
for our title chances. We are a
stronger side than before and
that includes mentally. We didn't
let the Dortmund or United
games affect us against Cardiff,
the reverse fixture against
Dortmund or Southampton,
teams who are no pushovers,
and we will not crumble if we
lose to City or Chelsea.
-------
As I've alluded to, it's mathematically possible. But realistically, it ain't happening. I'm not saying we'll "crumble" as you put it. But losing 6-pointers to title rivals would be big blows. Big enough to affect the team mentally when it gets to the crunch.
Yeah we dominated United in the
invincible season managing two
draws
-------
United wasn't our only title rivals. We beat 2nd placed Chelsea home and away and did the same to Liverpool. And we didn't lose to United. That is dominating your rivals.
Samir
It's common sense really, beating the smaller teams is just as important, if not more important than beating the big teams. A mixture between the two is the best though, obviously.
As for you Sheriff, I would love to put you to sleep with a left hook (although a jab would probably be enough for you) and then spit on your lifeless body.
The league cup side Chelsea sent out is arguably as good as their first team. It shows excellent squad depth but I don't think their best side is much of an upgrade while our best side is a lot better then the one that lost 2-0 that night.
No team is dominant (like Bayern in Germany for instance).
City have the best overall attack.
Arsenal have the best overall midfield.
??? have the best overall defence... maybe Arsenal as well.
Chelsea have the best overall squad.
United/Liverpool have deadly forward pairings that will ensure they push hard all season.
Spurs are atrocious and incredibly overrated. People under-estimate how many points Bale won through late wonder goals. They have a big squad full of good players but none of those players are special quality so they will treading water with Southampton. I can't decide about Everton though. They could challenge United/Liverpool if they can be consistent throughout the season.
We will win against our rivals, so no point sweating about it!
It's common sense really, beating
the smaller teams is just as
important, if not more important
than beating the big teams.
--------
In terms of individual raw points, yes. But as an effect on other rivals, I'd rather beat Chelse and lose to Hull, than beat Hull and lose to Chelsea. Beating small teams and losing to big teams makes you depend on the failure of others (which may not happen). The reverse puts you in greater charge of your destiny when you win the 6-pointers with your rivals. You're creating a 6-point swing in a single game if you beat them and stamping psychological authority over them.
" Beating small teams and losing to big teams makes you depend on the failure of others (which may not happen)."
===
Dafuq you on about son? I'd argue that it's the opposite.
Also please respond to my second paragraph
" Beating small teams and losing
to big teams makes you depend
on the failure of others (which
may not happen)."
===
Dafuq you on about son? I'd
argue that it's the opposite.
---------
Erm...no it isn't the opposite. If you lose points to the big teams, you have to depend on someone else taking points of them WHILE you must make back the points winning your own games. If you beat the big teams, you're less dependent on this. Take Man U for example. They were 8 points behind us when we played them. The went from the possibility of going 11 points behind to just 5 points behind - just by winning that one game. A 6-point swing. That was more desirable to them than HOPING we drop 6 points ( with 2 defeats or 3 draws) against other teams while the keep winning to take advantage of those dropped points. Slightly convoluted but fairly clear logic.
If you saw my 6ft 4in silhouette walking towards you in the dark in the street, you'd probably quicken your pace or hold someone close or cross the road or bolt into a shop nearby.
If you saw my 6ft 4in silhouette walking towards you in the dark in the street, you'd probably quicken your pace or hold someone close or cross the road or bolt into a shop nearby.
---------
wtf?
It only doesn't matter if you don't beat your immediate rivals if they also beat each other.
However if you do beat them all, then you're sitting pretty, if we take out City and Chelsea we're pretty much running unopposed at that point, if we lose both we're probably dropping to third!
One thing we can all agree on is that if win our next 4 games we will be way out in front on Christmas Day.
43 points from 17 games would be incredible.
Teams would play Arsenal consigned to defeat (it is this mental edge that Fergie had at United which is now gone).
"Erm...no it isn't the opposite. If you lose points to the big teams, you have to depend on someone else taking points of them WHILE you must make back the points winning your own games. If you beat the big teams, you're less dependent on this. Take Man U for example. They were 8 points behind us when we played them. The went from the possibility of going 11 points behind to just 5 points behind - just by winning that one game. A 6-point swing. That was more desirable to them than HOPING we drop 6 points ( with 2 defeats or 3 draws) against other teams while the keep winning to take advantage of those dropped points. Slightly convoluted but fairly clear logic."
===
That's one way of looking at it, but if you can't beat the small teams but can beat the small ones and your rivals are the exact opposite, they are relying on you to drop points against the smaller sides. Works both ways but I see your point.
''As I've alluded to, it's mathematically possible. But realistically, it ain't happening. I'm not saying we'll "crumble" as you put it. But losing 6-pointers to title rivals would be big blows. Big enough to affect the team mentally when it gets to the crunch.''
They would be blows, but not as significant as you think. Not this early on in the season. Our run-in up until new year is far from easy but I expect us to get around 13 points (excluding Napoli game). United have still not been that good since they've beaten us, managing two consecutive draws against the mighty Cardiff and the high-flying Tottenham Hotspur (I'm being sarcastic, if you can't tell).
To rule us out of the title race completely after Christmas is showing a total lack of faith in the team, in my opinion. One thing is for sure - whether we'll still be top of the league or not, we will almost certainly be there or thereabouts by 2014, irrespective of our results against City and Chelsea. Like I said, we do need to perform in the bigger games, but it is more important we beat the lesser sides.
Sheriff's just is just sticking up for his teams though, can't really blame him. He clearly thinks Arsenal are a threat this season and fears us. Good signs.
pretty much agree with everything you said Samir
You don't even need to go back to 08/09, last season United lost at home to Spurs, Chelsea and City, lost away to Everton and drew at the Emirates. Arsenal were the only team in the top 6 they didn't lose to.
We don't need to beat any of the top teams, although I think it would help massively considering how tight the league is at the moment, beating either of Chelsea or City in December would be massive. Even taking 2 points would be massive.
Batmanu, you're right. We're in a position where if we don't win, it's not the end of our title hopes and if we do, then fantastic. And although 2 points would be a big boost, it's what I mean about not needing to win. A point from each of those matches will suffice.
Sign in if you want to comment
We don't NEED to beat the bigger teams
Page 2 of 2
posted on 2/12/13
To be fair to Chelsea, their second XI could probably challenge for a Champions League place. Their squad depth is unrivalled.
posted on 2/12/13
If we get turned over by City and Chelsea in coming games, it's curtains for our title chances.
===
This is exactly what I'm talking about - no, no it is not curtains for our title chances. We are a stronger side than before and that includes mentally. We didn't let the Dortmund or United games affect us against Cardiff, the reverse fixture against Dortmund or Southampton, teams who are no pushovers, and we will not crumble if we lose to City or Chelsea.
Have some belief in your team for gods' sake.
posted on 2/12/13
the league cup gain was not our 1st team, but it showed how difficult Chelsea could be if we let them score first. We need them to come at us, and Jose will only ask the team to do that if we go ahead.
posted on 2/12/13
I agree with op.
We lost to Man U but since we have accumulated 6 points and united 2 points.
3 points is 3 points regardless of the opposition.
As for Chelsea, they will be massive favourites for the league.
They have probably the best squad in the league and can even afford to have the likes of Lukaku out on loan
posted on 2/12/13
This is exactly what I'm talking
about - no, no it is not curtains
for our title chances. We are a
stronger side than before and
that includes mentally. We didn't
let the Dortmund or United
games affect us against Cardiff,
the reverse fixture against
Dortmund or Southampton,
teams who are no pushovers,
and we will not crumble if we
lose to City or Chelsea.
-------
As I've alluded to, it's mathematically possible. But realistically, it ain't happening. I'm not saying we'll "crumble" as you put it. But losing 6-pointers to title rivals would be big blows. Big enough to affect the team mentally when it gets to the crunch.
posted on 2/12/13
Yeah we dominated United in the
invincible season managing two
draws
-------
United wasn't our only title rivals. We beat 2nd placed Chelsea home and away and did the same to Liverpool. And we didn't lose to United. That is dominating your rivals.
posted on 2/12/13
Samir
It's common sense really, beating the smaller teams is just as important, if not more important than beating the big teams. A mixture between the two is the best though, obviously.
As for you Sheriff, I would love to put you to sleep with a left hook (although a jab would probably be enough for you) and then spit on your lifeless body.
posted on 2/12/13
The league cup side Chelsea sent out is arguably as good as their first team. It shows excellent squad depth but I don't think their best side is much of an upgrade while our best side is a lot better then the one that lost 2-0 that night.
No team is dominant (like Bayern in Germany for instance).
City have the best overall attack.
Arsenal have the best overall midfield.
??? have the best overall defence... maybe Arsenal as well.
Chelsea have the best overall squad.
United/Liverpool have deadly forward pairings that will ensure they push hard all season.
Spurs are atrocious and incredibly overrated. People under-estimate how many points Bale won through late wonder goals. They have a big squad full of good players but none of those players are special quality so they will treading water with Southampton. I can't decide about Everton though. They could challenge United/Liverpool if they can be consistent throughout the season.
posted on 2/12/13
We will win against our rivals, so no point sweating about it!
posted on 2/12/13
It's common sense really, beating
the smaller teams is just as
important, if not more important
than beating the big teams.
--------
In terms of individual raw points, yes. But as an effect on other rivals, I'd rather beat Chelse and lose to Hull, than beat Hull and lose to Chelsea. Beating small teams and losing to big teams makes you depend on the failure of others (which may not happen). The reverse puts you in greater charge of your destiny when you win the 6-pointers with your rivals. You're creating a 6-point swing in a single game if you beat them and stamping psychological authority over them.
posted on 2/12/13
" Beating small teams and losing to big teams makes you depend on the failure of others (which may not happen)."
===
Dafuq you on about son? I'd argue that it's the opposite.
Also please respond to my second paragraph
posted on 2/12/13
Hi Kamran
posted on 2/12/13
Hello.
posted on 2/12/13
" Beating small teams and losing
to big teams makes you depend
on the failure of others (which
may not happen)."
===
Dafuq you on about son? I'd
argue that it's the opposite.
---------
Erm...no it isn't the opposite. If you lose points to the big teams, you have to depend on someone else taking points of them WHILE you must make back the points winning your own games. If you beat the big teams, you're less dependent on this. Take Man U for example. They were 8 points behind us when we played them. The went from the possibility of going 11 points behind to just 5 points behind - just by winning that one game. A 6-point swing. That was more desirable to them than HOPING we drop 6 points ( with 2 defeats or 3 draws) against other teams while the keep winning to take advantage of those dropped points. Slightly convoluted but fairly clear logic.
If you saw my 6ft 4in silhouette walking towards you in the dark in the street, you'd probably quicken your pace or hold someone close or cross the road or bolt into a shop nearby.
posted on 2/12/13
If you saw my 6ft 4in silhouette walking towards you in the dark in the street, you'd probably quicken your pace or hold someone close or cross the road or bolt into a shop nearby.
---------
wtf?
posted on 2/12/13
It only doesn't matter if you don't beat your immediate rivals if they also beat each other.
However if you do beat them all, then you're sitting pretty, if we take out City and Chelsea we're pretty much running unopposed at that point, if we lose both we're probably dropping to third!
posted on 2/12/13
One thing we can all agree on is that if win our next 4 games we will be way out in front on Christmas Day.
43 points from 17 games would be incredible.
Teams would play Arsenal consigned to defeat (it is this mental edge that Fergie had at United which is now gone).
posted on 2/12/13
"Erm...no it isn't the opposite. If you lose points to the big teams, you have to depend on someone else taking points of them WHILE you must make back the points winning your own games. If you beat the big teams, you're less dependent on this. Take Man U for example. They were 8 points behind us when we played them. The went from the possibility of going 11 points behind to just 5 points behind - just by winning that one game. A 6-point swing. That was more desirable to them than HOPING we drop 6 points ( with 2 defeats or 3 draws) against other teams while the keep winning to take advantage of those dropped points. Slightly convoluted but fairly clear logic."
===
That's one way of looking at it, but if you can't beat the small teams but can beat the small ones and your rivals are the exact opposite, they are relying on you to drop points against the smaller sides. Works both ways but I see your point.
posted on 2/12/13
big*
ffs
posted on 2/12/13
''As I've alluded to, it's mathematically possible. But realistically, it ain't happening. I'm not saying we'll "crumble" as you put it. But losing 6-pointers to title rivals would be big blows. Big enough to affect the team mentally when it gets to the crunch.''
They would be blows, but not as significant as you think. Not this early on in the season. Our run-in up until new year is far from easy but I expect us to get around 13 points (excluding Napoli game). United have still not been that good since they've beaten us, managing two consecutive draws against the mighty Cardiff and the high-flying Tottenham Hotspur (I'm being sarcastic, if you can't tell).
To rule us out of the title race completely after Christmas is showing a total lack of faith in the team, in my opinion. One thing is for sure - whether we'll still be top of the league or not, we will almost certainly be there or thereabouts by 2014, irrespective of our results against City and Chelsea. Like I said, we do need to perform in the bigger games, but it is more important we beat the lesser sides.
posted on 2/12/13
Sheriff's just is just sticking up for his teams though, can't really blame him. He clearly thinks Arsenal are a threat this season and fears us. Good signs.
posted on 2/12/13
pretty much agree with everything you said Samir
posted on 2/12/13
You don't even need to go back to 08/09, last season United lost at home to Spurs, Chelsea and City, lost away to Everton and drew at the Emirates. Arsenal were the only team in the top 6 they didn't lose to.
We don't need to beat any of the top teams, although I think it would help massively considering how tight the league is at the moment, beating either of Chelsea or City in December would be massive. Even taking 2 points would be massive.
posted on 2/12/13
Batmanu, you're right. We're in a position where if we don't win, it's not the end of our title hopes and if we do, then fantastic. And although 2 points would be a big boost, it's what I mean about not needing to win. A point from each of those matches will suffice.
Page 2 of 2