comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 1 hour, 30 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 2 minutes ago
It’s not even a debate the league is your bread and butter and must come before any trophy. Like you mention the champions league is fantastic but is in the end a cup competition and the best team doesn’t always win, but if you win the league you are the best there can be no dispute.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know they didn't win it but Liverpool made it a very close affair between themselves and City last season, and had they won it narrowly they certainly wouldn't have been the better team, just the luckier team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Huh? If Liverpool won it they would have certainly deserved it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the pure rubbish you have to put up with.
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
I would say you are Term, because it that was the case then your rivals hadn't been able to beat all the 'lesser' teams, or all the top six either, otherwise they would be champs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So we’re back to consistency. I’m beginning to think there’s just too many variables to state definitively how you measure the best team. Look at us last season, we lose the league by one point and lose one game all season, funnily enough to the eventual champions. The margins were minute. Yet in the CL we were considerably better than City, so there could be an argument that over both competitions we were better than City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s really no other variables other than who gets the most points. I don’t get what you are trying to say. The best team will be sitting at the top after 38 games. It’s the beauty of a league system.
In the end the reality is City parked the bus at anfield last season.
We failed to smash through the windows so they took home a point and denied us 3.
that won them the league 6 or 7 months later
The lesson?
Smash through them at every opportunity.
We might say the same about utd or everton parking the bus at their home grounds too but the direct results between city and Liverpool are far more important.
City took 4 points LFC 1.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
I don't know if it's a joke Firmino, but it's wrong. Also it's sidetracking the point, it is very rare titles are so close, there is usually a decent gap between first and second. So it's clear.
But in any event, I'm of the opinion the best team wins the league, every time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about the one where Chelsea beat us to it from the drogba offside goal, where he was over a metre offside.
Did the best team win it then?
CL>PL.
Doesn't matter how great a team you are (ie City) the champions league is the toughest to win. City start off seasons odds on to win the title, yet have never made the CL final.
The league is the best barometer of a team but CL is the glory. I imagine most players want that one the most.
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
I would say you are Term, because it that was the case then your rivals hadn't been able to beat all the 'lesser' teams, or all the top six either, otherwise they would be champs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So we’re back to consistency. I’m beginning to think there’s just too many variables to state definitively how you measure the best team. Look at us last season, we lose the league by one point and lose one game all season, funnily enough to the eventual champions. The margins were minute. Yet in the CL we were considerably better than City, so there could be an argument that over both competitions we were better than City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s really no other variables other than who gets the most points. I don’t get what you are trying to say. The best team will be sitting at the top after 38 games. It’s the beauty of a league system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re clearly too blinkered and simplistic to realise the ‘best’ team don’t always win.
If you win the CL you're entitled to call yourself Europe's best team. This would be the case even had Spurs won every CL game last season and lost to a Liverpool side in the final who'd already lost four times in the competition.
The CL is a cup competion so you do need a little luck but, other than having a European league (which I don't want) it's the best way to decide it.
I do think to truly be the undisputed best you do need to add a national title the same season though.
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
I would say you are Term, because it that was the case then your rivals hadn't been able to beat all the 'lesser' teams, or all the top six either, otherwise they would be champs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So we’re back to consistency. I’m beginning to think there’s just too many variables to state definitively how you measure the best team. Look at us last season, we lose the league by one point and lose one game all season, funnily enough to the eventual champions. The margins were minute. Yet in the CL we were considerably better than City, so there could be an argument that over both competitions we were better than City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s really no other variables other than who gets the most points. I don’t get what you are trying to say. The best team will be sitting at the top after 38 games. It’s the beauty of a league system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re clearly too blinkered and simplistic to realise the ‘best’ team don’t always win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The better team may not win in a one off game but the best team always wins the league.
If you want to be really pedantic back to back champions league titles are most hard.
any old club would luck their way to a final. Spurs did after all.
Not any old club can get to two finals in a row of course so LFC proved they were more than just lucky last year by reaching a second final. It was by making anfield a fortress. But winning the final was crucial to finish it off.
Real madrid are the only side to win back to back CL titles but were not best side in spain. its a funny old game.
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
I will say all I want is the league as I was a kid when we last won it and barley remember it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's hope you never win it in your lifetime then
comment by Yoda's big brother Hulk (U1250)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
I will say all I want is the league as I was a kid when we last won it and barley remember it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's hope you never win it in your lifetime then
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We will, don't worry.
I know I've used this before, but anyway,
"The best team wins the league, everything else is gossip". Bob Paisley
comment by Everywhere you go always take Lamela with you. Mopo's #1 fan. (U7905)
posted 52 minutes ago
CL>PL.
Doesn't matter how great a team you are (ie City) the champions league is the toughest to win. City start off seasons odds on to win the title, yet have never made the CL final.
The league is the best barometer of a team but CL is the glory. I imagine most players want that one the most.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This.
Do you really think the likes of Salah, Mane, Firmino or Aguero, De Bruyne, Jesus grow up thinking " I dream about winning the english league title"
Do they fack.
The CL is the pinnacle.
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
I would say you are Term, because it that was the case then your rivals hadn't been able to beat all the 'lesser' teams, or all the top six either, otherwise they would be champs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So we’re back to consistency. I’m beginning to think there’s just too many variables to state definitively how you measure the best team. Look at us last season, we lose the league by one point and lose one game all season, funnily enough to the eventual champions. The margins were minute. Yet in the CL we were considerably better than City, so there could be an argument that over both competitions we were better than City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s really no other variables other than who gets the most points. I don’t get what you are trying to say. The best team will be sitting at the top after 38 games. It’s the beauty of a league system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re clearly too blinkered and simplistic to realise the ‘best’ team don’t always win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The better team may not win in a one off game but the best team always wins the league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A nonsense statement. The team that performs best under rules specific to the league will win the league. The team that performs best under rules specific to the CL will win it. The tournaments measure different things but neither shows an objective "best".
The league has a completely arbitrary system of how many points you get for a win. For near enough 100 years, it was 2 points for a win and it is now 3. Last season city win the league under 3 points for a win. Had it been 2 points then Liverpool would have won it.
So you have a situation where the same tournament would produce completely different "best" teams based on the arbitrary choice of how many points for a win. Therefore neither can be considered objectively better in their performance. Man City were better under the rules of the league, Liverpool were better under the rules of the CL. The difference is that the CL contains a more formidable group of opposition. Bayern, Real, Barca, Juve or Everton, Wolves, Arsenal and united?
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
I would say you are Term, because it that was the case then your rivals hadn't been able to beat all the 'lesser' teams, or all the top six either, otherwise they would be champs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So we’re back to consistency. I’m beginning to think there’s just too many variables to state definitively how you measure the best team. Look at us last season, we lose the league by one point and lose one game all season, funnily enough to the eventual champions. The margins were minute. Yet in the CL we were considerably better than City, so there could be an argument that over both competitions we were better than City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s really no other variables other than who gets the most points. I don’t get what you are trying to say. The best team will be sitting at the top after 38 games. It’s the beauty of a league system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re clearly too blinkered and simplistic to realise the ‘best’ team don’t always win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The better team may not win in a one off game but the best team always wins the league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A nonsense statement. The team that performs best under rules specific to the league will win the league. The team that performs best under rules specific to the CL will win it. The tournaments measure different things but neither shows an objective "best".
The league has a completely arbitrary system of how many points you get for a win. For near enough 100 years, it was 2 points for a win and it is now 3. Last season city win the league under 3 points for a win. Had it been 2 points then Liverpool would have won it.
So you have a situation where the same tournament would produce completely different "best" teams based on the arbitrary choice of how many points for a win. Therefore neither can be considered objectively better in their performance. Man City were better under the rules of the league, Liverpool were better under the rules of the CL. The difference is that the CL contains a more formidable group of opposition. Bayern, Real, Barca, Juve or Everton, Wolves, Arsenal and united?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wish I hadn’t bothered reading all that rubbish.
Also OP you forgot to mention in your article that yesterday was no a debate about which was best, hardest etc. The debate, which shouldn't even be a debate was about what was the pinnacle of club football.
You said it was the league which means there are lots of pinnacles considering the English league is not the only one in Europe. You brought up comments like bread and butter, the best team wins the league etc. ignoring the fact that there are other leagues in Europe.
The CL is the pinnacle of club football, there is no debate, it simply is but your article is asking for a preference, which is a completely different discussion.
https://www.google.com/search?q=pinnacle%20of%20club%20football
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
I would say you are Term, because it that was the case then your rivals hadn't been able to beat all the 'lesser' teams, or all the top six either, otherwise they would be champs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So we’re back to consistency. I’m beginning to think there’s just too many variables to state definitively how you measure the best team. Look at us last season, we lose the league by one point and lose one game all season, funnily enough to the eventual champions. The margins were minute. Yet in the CL we were considerably better than City, so there could be an argument that over both competitions we were better than City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s really no other variables other than who gets the most points. I don’t get what you are trying to say. The best team will be sitting at the top after 38 games. It’s the beauty of a league system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re clearly too blinkered and simplistic to realise the ‘best’ team don’t always win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The better team may not win in a one off game but the best team always wins the league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A nonsense statement. The team that performs best under rules specific to the league will win the league. The team that performs best under rules specific to the CL will win it. The tournaments measure different things but neither shows an objective "best".
The league has a completely arbitrary system of how many points you get for a win. For near enough 100 years, it was 2 points for a win and it is now 3. Last season city win the league under 3 points for a win. Had it been 2 points then Liverpool would have won it.
So you have a situation where the same tournament would produce completely different "best" teams based on the arbitrary choice of how many points for a win. Therefore neither can be considered objectively better in their performance. Man City were better under the rules of the league, Liverpool were better under the rules of the CL. The difference is that the CL contains a more formidable group of opposition. Bayern, Real, Barca, Juve or Everton, Wolves, Arsenal and united?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wish I hadn’t bothered reading all that rubbish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You wouldn't understand mate.
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
I would say you are Term, because it that was the case then your rivals hadn't been able to beat all the 'lesser' teams, or all the top six either, otherwise they would be champs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So we’re back to consistency. I’m beginning to think there’s just too many variables to state definitively how you measure the best team. Look at us last season, we lose the league by one point and lose one game all season, funnily enough to the eventual champions. The margins were minute. Yet in the CL we were considerably better than City, so there could be an argument that over both competitions we were better than City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s really no other variables other than who gets the most points. I don’t get what you are trying to say. The best team will be sitting at the top after 38 games. It’s the beauty of a league system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re clearly too blinkered and simplistic to realise the ‘best’ team don’t always win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The better team may not win in a one off game but the best team always wins the league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A nonsense statement. The team that performs best under rules specific to the league will win the league. The team that performs best under rules specific to the CL will win it. The tournaments measure different things but neither shows an objective "best".
The league has a completely arbitrary system of how many points you get for a win. For near enough 100 years, it was 2 points for a win and it is now 3. Last season city win the league under 3 points for a win. Had it been 2 points then Liverpool would have won it.
So you have a situation where the same tournament would produce completely different "best" teams based on the arbitrary choice of how many points for a win. Therefore neither can be considered objectively better in their performance. Man City were better under the rules of the league, Liverpool were better under the rules of the CL. The difference is that the CL contains a more formidable group of opposition. Bayern, Real, Barca, Juve or Everton, Wolves, Arsenal and united?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wish I hadn’t bothered reading all that rubbish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet you have been unable to offer a single reasonable argument against any of it. Which part is not true?
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
I would say you are Term, because it that was the case then your rivals hadn't been able to beat all the 'lesser' teams, or all the top six either, otherwise they would be champs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So we’re back to consistency. I’m beginning to think there’s just too many variables to state definitively how you measure the best team. Look at us last season, we lose the league by one point and lose one game all season, funnily enough to the eventual champions. The margins were minute. Yet in the CL we were considerably better than City, so there could be an argument that over both competitions we were better than City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s really no other variables other than who gets the most points. I don’t get what you are trying to say. The best team will be sitting at the top after 38 games. It’s the beauty of a league system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re clearly too blinkered and simplistic to realise the ‘best’ team don’t always win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The better team may not win in a one off game but the best team always wins the league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A nonsense statement. The team that performs best under rules specific to the league will win the league. The team that performs best under rules specific to the CL will win it. The tournaments measure different things but neither shows an objective "best".
The league has a completely arbitrary system of how many points you get for a win. For near enough 100 years, it was 2 points for a win and it is now 3. Last season city win the league under 3 points for a win. Had it been 2 points then Liverpool would have won it.
So you have a situation where the same tournament would produce completely different "best" teams based on the arbitrary choice of how many points for a win. Therefore neither can be considered objectively better in their performance. Man City were better under the rules of the league, Liverpool were better under the rules of the CL. The difference is that the CL contains a more formidable group of opposition. Bayern, Real, Barca, Juve or Everton, Wolves, Arsenal and united?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wish I hadn’t bothered reading all that rubbish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet you have been unable to offer a single reasonable argument against any of it. Which part is not true?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s just the typical reaction by someone who knows his argument is nonsense, yet is too embarrassed to acknowledge it.
comment by Robbing Hoody - tell me I can't and I'll show you I can (U6374)
posted 3 hours, 21 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 2 minutes ago
It’s not even a debate the league is your bread and butter and must come before any trophy. Like you mention the champions league is fantastic but is in the end a cup competition and the best team doesn’t always win, but if you win the league you are the best there can be no dispute.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know they didn't win it but Liverpool made it a very close affair between themselves and City last season, and had they won it narrowly they certainly wouldn't have been the better team, just the luckier team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Huh? If Liverpool won it they would have certainly deserved it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They had more luck than City did with decisions and moments in games.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonsense and pure confirmation bias. In fact theyve literally completed a study with VAR in hindsight and we would have won the league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That study was media bull sheit to rope in fans and get hits. It wasn’t even a study. If VAR was used last season you may have lost by a bigger lead.
The study you refer to doesn’t even mention the offside goal at west ham for example
Also OP you forgot to mention in your article that yesterday was no a debate about which was best, hardest etc. The debate, which shouldn't even be a debate was about what was the pinnacle of club football.
You said it was the league which means there are lots of pinnacles considering the English league is not the only one in Europe. You brought up comments like bread and butter, the best team wins the league etc. ignoring the fact that there are other leagues in Europe
____________________________________
Don't remember coming up with bread and butter.
The best team wins the league is a Bob Paisley quote.
I'm only interested in the English game, how others perceive it is up to them.
Yes, it is up for debate, we have been debating it.
It's not a fact, it's an opinion, what makes it a fact?
If City don't win the league this year then the best team will not have won it
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 56 minutes ago
Also OP you forgot to mention in your article that yesterday was no a debate about which was best, hardest etc. The debate, which shouldn't even be a debate was about what was the pinnacle of club football.
You said it was the league which means there are lots of pinnacles considering the English league is not the only one in Europe. You brought up comments like bread and butter, the best team wins the league etc. ignoring the fact that there are other leagues in Europe
____________________________________
Don't remember coming up with bread and butter.
The best team wins the league is a Bob Paisley quote.
I'm only interested in the English game, how others perceive it is up to them.
Yes, it is up for debate, we have been debating it.
It's not a fact, it's an opinion, what makes it a fact?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn't. The pinnacle of club football is the pinnacle of club football, it's not a preference. Your article offers a preference which is a completely different topic to the one from yesterday.
I suspect you know that which is why you worded it in that way.
Smart but not smart enough.
Now create an article on the actual subject from yesterday. What is the pinnacle of club football? Then you'll see an overwhelming majority disagree with you. The point is, it isn't a preference, it's the pinnacle of club football.
Champions League - no question. Beating the best in Europe trumps the teams in the EPL.
Sign in if you want to comment
The best trophy to win
Page 5 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 6/10/19
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 1 hour, 30 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 2 minutes ago
It’s not even a debate the league is your bread and butter and must come before any trophy. Like you mention the champions league is fantastic but is in the end a cup competition and the best team doesn’t always win, but if you win the league you are the best there can be no dispute.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know they didn't win it but Liverpool made it a very close affair between themselves and City last season, and had they won it narrowly they certainly wouldn't have been the better team, just the luckier team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Huh? If Liverpool won it they would have certainly deserved it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the pure rubbish you have to put up with.
posted on 6/10/19
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
I would say you are Term, because it that was the case then your rivals hadn't been able to beat all the 'lesser' teams, or all the top six either, otherwise they would be champs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So we’re back to consistency. I’m beginning to think there’s just too many variables to state definitively how you measure the best team. Look at us last season, we lose the league by one point and lose one game all season, funnily enough to the eventual champions. The margins were minute. Yet in the CL we were considerably better than City, so there could be an argument that over both competitions we were better than City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s really no other variables other than who gets the most points. I don’t get what you are trying to say. The best team will be sitting at the top after 38 games. It’s the beauty of a league system.
posted on 6/10/19
In the end the reality is City parked the bus at anfield last season.
We failed to smash through the windows so they took home a point and denied us 3.
that won them the league 6 or 7 months later
The lesson?
Smash through them at every opportunity.
We might say the same about utd or everton parking the bus at their home grounds too but the direct results between city and Liverpool are far more important.
City took 4 points LFC 1.
posted on 6/10/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 6/10/19
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
I don't know if it's a joke Firmino, but it's wrong. Also it's sidetracking the point, it is very rare titles are so close, there is usually a decent gap between first and second. So it's clear.
But in any event, I'm of the opinion the best team wins the league, every time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about the one where Chelsea beat us to it from the drogba offside goal, where he was over a metre offside.
Did the best team win it then?
posted on 6/10/19
CL>PL.
Doesn't matter how great a team you are (ie City) the champions league is the toughest to win. City start off seasons odds on to win the title, yet have never made the CL final.
The league is the best barometer of a team but CL is the glory. I imagine most players want that one the most.
posted on 6/10/19
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
I would say you are Term, because it that was the case then your rivals hadn't been able to beat all the 'lesser' teams, or all the top six either, otherwise they would be champs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So we’re back to consistency. I’m beginning to think there’s just too many variables to state definitively how you measure the best team. Look at us last season, we lose the league by one point and lose one game all season, funnily enough to the eventual champions. The margins were minute. Yet in the CL we were considerably better than City, so there could be an argument that over both competitions we were better than City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s really no other variables other than who gets the most points. I don’t get what you are trying to say. The best team will be sitting at the top after 38 games. It’s the beauty of a league system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re clearly too blinkered and simplistic to realise the ‘best’ team don’t always win.
posted on 6/10/19
If you win the CL you're entitled to call yourself Europe's best team. This would be the case even had Spurs won every CL game last season and lost to a Liverpool side in the final who'd already lost four times in the competition.
The CL is a cup competion so you do need a little luck but, other than having a European league (which I don't want) it's the best way to decide it.
I do think to truly be the undisputed best you do need to add a national title the same season though.
posted on 6/10/19
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
I would say you are Term, because it that was the case then your rivals hadn't been able to beat all the 'lesser' teams, or all the top six either, otherwise they would be champs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So we’re back to consistency. I’m beginning to think there’s just too many variables to state definitively how you measure the best team. Look at us last season, we lose the league by one point and lose one game all season, funnily enough to the eventual champions. The margins were minute. Yet in the CL we were considerably better than City, so there could be an argument that over both competitions we were better than City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s really no other variables other than who gets the most points. I don’t get what you are trying to say. The best team will be sitting at the top after 38 games. It’s the beauty of a league system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re clearly too blinkered and simplistic to realise the ‘best’ team don’t always win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The better team may not win in a one off game but the best team always wins the league.
posted on 6/10/19
If you want to be really pedantic back to back champions league titles are most hard.
any old club would luck their way to a final. Spurs did after all.
Not any old club can get to two finals in a row of course so LFC proved they were more than just lucky last year by reaching a second final. It was by making anfield a fortress. But winning the final was crucial to finish it off.
Real madrid are the only side to win back to back CL titles but were not best side in spain. its a funny old game.
posted on 6/10/19
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
I will say all I want is the league as I was a kid when we last won it and barley remember it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's hope you never win it in your lifetime then
posted on 6/10/19
comment by Yoda's big brother Hulk (U1250)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
I will say all I want is the league as I was a kid when we last won it and barley remember it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's hope you never win it in your lifetime then
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We will, don't worry.
posted on 6/10/19
I know I've used this before, but anyway,
"The best team wins the league, everything else is gossip". Bob Paisley
posted on 6/10/19
comment by Everywhere you go always take Lamela with you. Mopo's #1 fan. (U7905)
posted 52 minutes ago
CL>PL.
Doesn't matter how great a team you are (ie City) the champions league is the toughest to win. City start off seasons odds on to win the title, yet have never made the CL final.
The league is the best barometer of a team but CL is the glory. I imagine most players want that one the most.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This.
Do you really think the likes of Salah, Mane, Firmino or Aguero, De Bruyne, Jesus grow up thinking " I dream about winning the english league title"
Do they fack.
The CL is the pinnacle.
posted on 6/10/19
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
I would say you are Term, because it that was the case then your rivals hadn't been able to beat all the 'lesser' teams, or all the top six either, otherwise they would be champs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So we’re back to consistency. I’m beginning to think there’s just too many variables to state definitively how you measure the best team. Look at us last season, we lose the league by one point and lose one game all season, funnily enough to the eventual champions. The margins were minute. Yet in the CL we were considerably better than City, so there could be an argument that over both competitions we were better than City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s really no other variables other than who gets the most points. I don’t get what you are trying to say. The best team will be sitting at the top after 38 games. It’s the beauty of a league system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re clearly too blinkered and simplistic to realise the ‘best’ team don’t always win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The better team may not win in a one off game but the best team always wins the league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A nonsense statement. The team that performs best under rules specific to the league will win the league. The team that performs best under rules specific to the CL will win it. The tournaments measure different things but neither shows an objective "best".
The league has a completely arbitrary system of how many points you get for a win. For near enough 100 years, it was 2 points for a win and it is now 3. Last season city win the league under 3 points for a win. Had it been 2 points then Liverpool would have won it.
So you have a situation where the same tournament would produce completely different "best" teams based on the arbitrary choice of how many points for a win. Therefore neither can be considered objectively better in their performance. Man City were better under the rules of the league, Liverpool were better under the rules of the CL. The difference is that the CL contains a more formidable group of opposition. Bayern, Real, Barca, Juve or Everton, Wolves, Arsenal and united?
posted on 6/10/19
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
I would say you are Term, because it that was the case then your rivals hadn't been able to beat all the 'lesser' teams, or all the top six either, otherwise they would be champs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So we’re back to consistency. I’m beginning to think there’s just too many variables to state definitively how you measure the best team. Look at us last season, we lose the league by one point and lose one game all season, funnily enough to the eventual champions. The margins were minute. Yet in the CL we were considerably better than City, so there could be an argument that over both competitions we were better than City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s really no other variables other than who gets the most points. I don’t get what you are trying to say. The best team will be sitting at the top after 38 games. It’s the beauty of a league system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re clearly too blinkered and simplistic to realise the ‘best’ team don’t always win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The better team may not win in a one off game but the best team always wins the league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A nonsense statement. The team that performs best under rules specific to the league will win the league. The team that performs best under rules specific to the CL will win it. The tournaments measure different things but neither shows an objective "best".
The league has a completely arbitrary system of how many points you get for a win. For near enough 100 years, it was 2 points for a win and it is now 3. Last season city win the league under 3 points for a win. Had it been 2 points then Liverpool would have won it.
So you have a situation where the same tournament would produce completely different "best" teams based on the arbitrary choice of how many points for a win. Therefore neither can be considered objectively better in their performance. Man City were better under the rules of the league, Liverpool were better under the rules of the CL. The difference is that the CL contains a more formidable group of opposition. Bayern, Real, Barca, Juve or Everton, Wolves, Arsenal and united?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wish I hadn’t bothered reading all that rubbish.
posted on 6/10/19
Also OP you forgot to mention in your article that yesterday was no a debate about which was best, hardest etc. The debate, which shouldn't even be a debate was about what was the pinnacle of club football.
You said it was the league which means there are lots of pinnacles considering the English league is not the only one in Europe. You brought up comments like bread and butter, the best team wins the league etc. ignoring the fact that there are other leagues in Europe.
The CL is the pinnacle of club football, there is no debate, it simply is but your article is asking for a preference, which is a completely different discussion.
https://www.google.com/search?q=pinnacle%20of%20club%20football
posted on 6/10/19
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
I would say you are Term, because it that was the case then your rivals hadn't been able to beat all the 'lesser' teams, or all the top six either, otherwise they would be champs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So we’re back to consistency. I’m beginning to think there’s just too many variables to state definitively how you measure the best team. Look at us last season, we lose the league by one point and lose one game all season, funnily enough to the eventual champions. The margins were minute. Yet in the CL we were considerably better than City, so there could be an argument that over both competitions we were better than City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s really no other variables other than who gets the most points. I don’t get what you are trying to say. The best team will be sitting at the top after 38 games. It’s the beauty of a league system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re clearly too blinkered and simplistic to realise the ‘best’ team don’t always win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The better team may not win in a one off game but the best team always wins the league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A nonsense statement. The team that performs best under rules specific to the league will win the league. The team that performs best under rules specific to the CL will win it. The tournaments measure different things but neither shows an objective "best".
The league has a completely arbitrary system of how many points you get for a win. For near enough 100 years, it was 2 points for a win and it is now 3. Last season city win the league under 3 points for a win. Had it been 2 points then Liverpool would have won it.
So you have a situation where the same tournament would produce completely different "best" teams based on the arbitrary choice of how many points for a win. Therefore neither can be considered objectively better in their performance. Man City were better under the rules of the league, Liverpool were better under the rules of the CL. The difference is that the CL contains a more formidable group of opposition. Bayern, Real, Barca, Juve or Everton, Wolves, Arsenal and united?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wish I hadn’t bothered reading all that rubbish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You wouldn't understand mate.
posted on 6/10/19
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
I would say you are Term, because it that was the case then your rivals hadn't been able to beat all the 'lesser' teams, or all the top six either, otherwise they would be champs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So we’re back to consistency. I’m beginning to think there’s just too many variables to state definitively how you measure the best team. Look at us last season, we lose the league by one point and lose one game all season, funnily enough to the eventual champions. The margins were minute. Yet in the CL we were considerably better than City, so there could be an argument that over both competitions we were better than City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s really no other variables other than who gets the most points. I don’t get what you are trying to say. The best team will be sitting at the top after 38 games. It’s the beauty of a league system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re clearly too blinkered and simplistic to realise the ‘best’ team don’t always win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The better team may not win in a one off game but the best team always wins the league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A nonsense statement. The team that performs best under rules specific to the league will win the league. The team that performs best under rules specific to the CL will win it. The tournaments measure different things but neither shows an objective "best".
The league has a completely arbitrary system of how many points you get for a win. For near enough 100 years, it was 2 points for a win and it is now 3. Last season city win the league under 3 points for a win. Had it been 2 points then Liverpool would have won it.
So you have a situation where the same tournament would produce completely different "best" teams based on the arbitrary choice of how many points for a win. Therefore neither can be considered objectively better in their performance. Man City were better under the rules of the league, Liverpool were better under the rules of the CL. The difference is that the CL contains a more formidable group of opposition. Bayern, Real, Barca, Juve or Everton, Wolves, Arsenal and united?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wish I hadn’t bothered reading all that rubbish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet you have been unable to offer a single reasonable argument against any of it. Which part is not true?
posted on 6/10/19
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
I would say you are Term, because it that was the case then your rivals hadn't been able to beat all the 'lesser' teams, or all the top six either, otherwise they would be champs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So we’re back to consistency. I’m beginning to think there’s just too many variables to state definitively how you measure the best team. Look at us last season, we lose the league by one point and lose one game all season, funnily enough to the eventual champions. The margins were minute. Yet in the CL we were considerably better than City, so there could be an argument that over both competitions we were better than City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s really no other variables other than who gets the most points. I don’t get what you are trying to say. The best team will be sitting at the top after 38 games. It’s the beauty of a league system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re clearly too blinkered and simplistic to realise the ‘best’ team don’t always win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The better team may not win in a one off game but the best team always wins the league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A nonsense statement. The team that performs best under rules specific to the league will win the league. The team that performs best under rules specific to the CL will win it. The tournaments measure different things but neither shows an objective "best".
The league has a completely arbitrary system of how many points you get for a win. For near enough 100 years, it was 2 points for a win and it is now 3. Last season city win the league under 3 points for a win. Had it been 2 points then Liverpool would have won it.
So you have a situation where the same tournament would produce completely different "best" teams based on the arbitrary choice of how many points for a win. Therefore neither can be considered objectively better in their performance. Man City were better under the rules of the league, Liverpool were better under the rules of the CL. The difference is that the CL contains a more formidable group of opposition. Bayern, Real, Barca, Juve or Everton, Wolves, Arsenal and united?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wish I hadn’t bothered reading all that rubbish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet you have been unable to offer a single reasonable argument against any of it. Which part is not true?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s just the typical reaction by someone who knows his argument is nonsense, yet is too embarrassed to acknowledge it.
posted on 6/10/19
comment by Robbing Hoody - tell me I can't and I'll show you I can (U6374)
posted 3 hours, 21 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 2 minutes ago
It’s not even a debate the league is your bread and butter and must come before any trophy. Like you mention the champions league is fantastic but is in the end a cup competition and the best team doesn’t always win, but if you win the league you are the best there can be no dispute.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know they didn't win it but Liverpool made it a very close affair between themselves and City last season, and had they won it narrowly they certainly wouldn't have been the better team, just the luckier team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Huh? If Liverpool won it they would have certainly deserved it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They had more luck than City did with decisions and moments in games.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonsense and pure confirmation bias. In fact theyve literally completed a study with VAR in hindsight and we would have won the league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That study was media bull sheit to rope in fans and get hits. It wasn’t even a study. If VAR was used last season you may have lost by a bigger lead.
The study you refer to doesn’t even mention the offside goal at west ham for example
posted on 6/10/19
Also OP you forgot to mention in your article that yesterday was no a debate about which was best, hardest etc. The debate, which shouldn't even be a debate was about what was the pinnacle of club football.
You said it was the league which means there are lots of pinnacles considering the English league is not the only one in Europe. You brought up comments like bread and butter, the best team wins the league etc. ignoring the fact that there are other leagues in Europe
____________________________________
Don't remember coming up with bread and butter.
The best team wins the league is a Bob Paisley quote.
I'm only interested in the English game, how others perceive it is up to them.
Yes, it is up for debate, we have been debating it.
It's not a fact, it's an opinion, what makes it a fact?
posted on 6/10/19
If City don't win the league this year then the best team will not have won it
posted on 6/10/19
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 56 minutes ago
Also OP you forgot to mention in your article that yesterday was no a debate about which was best, hardest etc. The debate, which shouldn't even be a debate was about what was the pinnacle of club football.
You said it was the league which means there are lots of pinnacles considering the English league is not the only one in Europe. You brought up comments like bread and butter, the best team wins the league etc. ignoring the fact that there are other leagues in Europe
____________________________________
Don't remember coming up with bread and butter.
The best team wins the league is a Bob Paisley quote.
I'm only interested in the English game, how others perceive it is up to them.
Yes, it is up for debate, we have been debating it.
It's not a fact, it's an opinion, what makes it a fact?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn't. The pinnacle of club football is the pinnacle of club football, it's not a preference. Your article offers a preference which is a completely different topic to the one from yesterday.
I suspect you know that which is why you worded it in that way.
Smart but not smart enough.
Now create an article on the actual subject from yesterday. What is the pinnacle of club football? Then you'll see an overwhelming majority disagree with you. The point is, it isn't a preference, it's the pinnacle of club football.
posted on 6/10/19
Champions League - no question. Beating the best in Europe trumps the teams in the EPL.
Page 5 of 7
6 | 7