Football 2015/16

[thetime]

So are you predicting Liverpool to challenge for the title Neil?

[pink_triangle]

 

Everyone wanting Chelsea to lose is a compliment isn't it? Liverpool had it in the 80s and United in the 90s and 00's.

 

Not sure, if city win the title this season that will be 3 out of the last 5, I dont get the impression people feel as negatively about them.

[pink_triangle]

 

So are you predicting Liverpool to challenge for the title Neil?

 

They may do, or they may not!

[thetime]

Not sure, if city win the title this season that will be 3 out of the last 5, I dont get the impression people feel as negatively about them.

Good point pink.

[eFestivals]

So are you predicting Liverpool to challenge for the title Neil?

Nope. I made it very clear in one of my posts this morning that I'm not.

I was disputing TGT's claim that they're "destined to finish quite a way off the top two".

All I'm saying is that not enough has been seen yet to know either way about whether they'll be stronger than last season or not. There's reasons to suggest they're going better this year, but that might not hold up as things progress.

 

PS: I reckon there's a strong chance that Arsenal will finish in the top two. It was more Arsenal than Liverpool that caused me to respond to TGT's post - but there's more to speculate about with Liverpool as they're a more-changed side.

Edited August 25, 2015 by eFestivals

[pink_triangle]

As they say the premiership is a marathon and not a sprint. I think a team like liverpool challenging a couple of years ago was an exception and not something we will see on a regular basis. Neither liverpool or arsenal will challenge for the title, because at least two team (City and Chelsea) have better players, more squad depth and play more effective football. Now uncontrolable variables could conspire against one, but they wont against both.

[TheGayTent]

Not sure, if city win the title this season that will be 3 out of the last 5, I dont get the impression people feel as negatively about them.

It takes time. Plus they play decent football. It won't happen, because Pellegrini won't stay long enough, but were he to stay and they were successful they'd soon get the same treatment. Slightly less maybe because Pellegrini is less aggressive and less arrogant than a Fergie or a Mourinho, but it'd happen.

[TheGayTent]

Nope. I made it very clear in one of my posts this morning that I'm not.

I was disputing TGT's claim that they're "destined to finish quite a way off the top two".

All I'm saying is that not enough has been seen yet to know either way about whether they'll be stronger than last season or not. There's reasons to suggest they're going better this year, but that might not hold up as things progress.

PS: I reckon there's a strong chance that Arsenal will finish in the top two. It was more Arsenal than Liverpool that caused me to respond to TGT's post - but there's more to speculate about with Liverpool as they're a more-changed side.

You'd make a cracking pundit on BT Sport

How many title winners have there been since the 1958-59 season that lost at home to West Ham?

[eFestivals]

How many title winners have there been since the 1958-59 season that lost at home to West Ham?

sorry, I hadn't realised that results against West Ham is what decides the title.

According to you that was a new much-improved West Ham (it wasn't). If it was a new much-improved West Ham why shouldn't a 'top' team lose to them on occasion?

 

Given that you're now calling yourself wrong from just a couple of weeks back, why should anyone accept you're right today?

 

[TheGayTent]

sorry, I hadn't realised that results against West Ham is what decides the title.

According to you that was a new much-improved West Ham (it wasn't). If it was a new much-improved West Ham why shouldn't a 'top' team lose to them on occasion?

Given that you're now calling yourself wrong from just a couple of weeks back, why should anyone accept you're right today?

Another case of you reading what you want to read rather than the actual words.

Well done. Again.

[thetime]

sorry, I hadn't realised that results against West Ham is what decides the title.

It does for man utd....

[eFestivals]

As they say the premiership is a marathon and not a sprint. I think a team like liverpool challenging a couple of years ago was an exception and not something we will see on a regular basis. Neither liverpool or arsenal will challenge for the title, because at least two team (City and Chelsea) have better players, more squad depth and play more effective football. Now uncontrolable variables could conspire against one, but they wont against both.

 

Much the same things could have been said two seasons ago - and were - and yet Chelsea turned out to not actually be that strong after all.

 

Teams tend to fall off the pace after winning the title, and it's far from impossible that won't be how Chelsea go this season.

[TheGayTent]

It does for man utd....

Twice ...

[zahidf]

It's too early to make broad assumptions. I think city are looking unbeatable at the moment though. What impressed me about them so far this season is that they are playing more as a team compared to previous years, and less like a bunch of talented mercenaries put together by a rich person

If man utd don't get in another striker and rely on Rooney for goals, they are probably fucked

[eFestivals]

Another case of you reading what you want to read rather than the actual words.

Well done. Again.

 

you certainly suggested that a single result against West Ham was indicative of a team's chances.

 

Chelsea lost to Newc last season, yet still won the title. Why is that result less meaningful than Arsenal's against WHU?

 

It's a meaningless argument.

[TheGayTent]

According to you that was a new much-improved West Ham (it wasn't). If it was a new much-improved West Ham why shouldn't a 'top' team lose to them on occasion?

Given that you're now calling yourself wrong from just a couple of weeks back, why should anyone accept you're right today?

Learn to read.

[pink_triangle]

 

Much the same things could have been said two seasons ago - and were - and yet Chelsea turned out to not actually be that strong after all.

 

Teams tend to fall off the pace after winning the title, and it's far from impossible that won't be how Chelsea go this season.

 

Thats my point, its possible that things could conspire against chelsea, just as it is that they will conspire against city. I think however its very unlikely that it will happen to both.

[TheGayTent]

It's a meaningless argument.

Is that better or worse than a meaningless discussion with yourself?

[phantom quartz]

 

 

They may do, or they may not!

I think any team like Liverpool who sell arguably their best players i.e Gerrard, Sterling, and Suarez, don't deserve to win anything. I'd like to know if their manager actually wanted to sell those players.

If he didn't want to sell then he should've walked away from the job before he's sacked for not winning anything, cos the players who'd have probably won trophies for them were all sold to teams who will win trophies by strengthening their teams with those players.

 

On a different note, i'd like to see Swansea get in the top 4, they've done a great job over the last few years and are a nice team to watch....they're quickly becoming my 2nd team 

[eFestivals]

Is that better or worse than a meaningless discussion with yourself?

hey, you know me, if you start a meaningless argument I'll point out that it is, and we'll both descend into the every-more meaningless.

But you got us here.

[TheGayTent]

I think any team like Liverpool who sell arguably their best players i.e Gerrard, Sterling, and Suarez, don't deserve to win anything. I'd like to know if their manager actually wanted to sell those players.

If he didn't want to sell then he should've walked away from the job before he's sacked for not winning anything, cos the players who'd have probably won trophies for them were all sold to teams who will win trophies by strengthening their teams with those players.

Surely that depends on the job as it was described to him before he started?

I'm sure he wasn't told he'd be given a blank cheque book.

On a different note, i'd like to see Swansea get in the top 4, they've done a great job over the last few years and are a nice team to watch....they're quickly becoming my 2nd team

If only they weren't Welsh

[TheGayTent]

hey, you know me, if you start a meaningless argument I'll point out that it is, and we'll both descend into the every-more meaningless.

But you got us here.

No...I think that was you by posting inaccuracies and attributing opinions to me that I hadn't made.

Carry on.

[eFestivals]

Thats my point, its possible that things could conspire against chelsea, just as it is that they will conspire against city. I think however its very unlikely that it will happen to both.

Nothing much needs to conspire against Chelsea. Things merely have to play out as they normally do for a team in Chelsea's position of being last season's champions.

As for City, I agree they're looking mighty fine, and yet if Aguero gets injured they could easily struggle to be up there. It's not like they've got the proven back-up for him now, either.

[eFestivals]

No...I think that was you by posting inaccuracies and attributing opinions to me that I hadn't made.

Carry on.

Ah, OK. West Ham are much the same as they ever were as I said and yo9u were wrong about, and you've been talking shite.

[The Nal]

I agree with TGT, can't see either near the top this year. Liverpool were made to look solid last night by the typical Arsenal pass-pass-pass-lose-the-ball attacking strategy. CROSS the fucking ball Wenger!. It works sometimes. Arsenal also lost nearly every 50/50 and ducked out of most of them. Chicken shits.