coogar:

you are daft. . . . .sharpen your comprehension skills and read again. . . .

even after i highlighted the word only, it still didn't sink in your chelsea head.
let me simplify it for you cos ritchboy told me you cop periodic brain-farts every sunday. . . . . .what i was trying to say is isolating fewest goals conceded isn't the only parameter to judge the best defence. the number of games lost also count for something.

nateevs:

Call it joint. Call it all you want.
Yes they do, based on one season.
How else would you put it.

ritchboy:

Using your logic, Newcastle and West Brom have a better attack than Spurs because they both scored more goals, and Blackpool's is on par because they scored the same number of goals.

Midfield nko? How did you arrive at that unfortunate conclusion?

nateevs:

Dude I saw your "only" . . . And yes while it is arguable that it may not be the "only" parameter, how else would you judge it?
By the number of games you win? How then do we judge the best attack? By the fewer goals they concede?
Quit mixing things up dude.

If a team finishes 10th in the league and the Champions concede 20 more goals than them, which team has the better defence?

coogar:

it's a combination of many variables.
--number of goals conceded
--number of clean sheets.

nateevs:

Don't ask me midfield nko? without accepting your stupidity.
If Blackpool scored more goals than Spurs, yes they do have a better attack than Spurs.
What else would you come up with? Inferior attack?

How do you judge a better attack?
If Blackpool have a defence as good as Spurs', they could easily finish above Spurs!. Simple as.

ritchboy:

You are a phat phool!

"Blackpool have a better attack than Spurs" - Nateevs 2011. I should frame this and show it to your grandchildren, provided they don't inherit your stupidity!

As for midfield:

Lamps Cesc
Essien Wilshere
Mikel        Song
Benayoun        Nasri
Ramires Ramsey
Josh        Rosicky
Romeu             Diaby

Of course only one with the brain-power of a hard-boiled egg would say Chelsea have the best midfield in the league

nateevs:


Now correct!

sosereal:

Man city bunch of dumb players,only big names wit little sense.

coogar:

arsenal's midfield is better than chelsea. i will take city's midfield over chelsea's as well.

so the number of games lost don't count?
what's laudable about a defence that loses more games than their rivals?
nateevs, it's the combination of those 3 factors. . . . .although, it's usual for the meanest defence to concede the fewest goals, the highest number of clean sheets and lose the fewest number of games.

ritchboy:

You are a phat phool!

"Blackpool have a better attack than Spurs" - Nateevs 2011. I should frame this and show it to your grandchildren, provided they don't inherit your stupidity, otherwise they'd think it's brilliant!

As for midfield:

Lamps Cesc
Essien Wilshere
Mikel        Song
Benayoun        Nasri
Ramires Ramsey
Josh        Rosicky
Romeu             Diaby

Of course only one with the brain-power of a hard-boiled egg would say Chelsea have the best midfield in the league

nateevs:
It's not ok to tell me how phat a fool I am without saying why you think otherwise.

Ahhhhh, you are a fool, hard boiled egg, Nateevs 2011. . . . . . blah blah blah! A lot of typing without saying much.
Tell me why you believe Spurs' attack is better than Blackpool's.

As for midfield, can you tell me how you have come to the conclusion that Arsenal's better.

Listing the players I already know doesn't help.

A. You cannot conclude team A has a better attack than team B based on ONE season's statistics.
B. You cannot conclude team A has a better attack than team B based on ONE competition's(EPL) statistics.
C. You cannot conclude team A has a better attack than team B based on statistics alone when statistics in general can never paint the full picture.

Because they have far better attacking players. I have put it as succinctly as possible since comprehension is not your forte.

If you actually believe Blackpool have a better attack than Spurs then i should be apologizing to hard-boiled eggs the world over for comparing their intelligence to yours.

Clichy or wetin den dey call am don KO OSHI BA MAN CITY. may god help them, they stat well and end bad, ly

nateevs:

This has to go down as the dumbest thing ever posted by a nairalander in years.
Come on man!. It's a league for heaven's sake.

Since stats never always paint the full picture, we might as well wait for 3 seasons to know who are truly champions, that way we've had more a season's stats to prove the undoubtedly best team. Because the best team wins the PL.

However according to your daft logic, "one team cannot be said to be better than the rest in one season"

I am sorry Alfa Ritchboy, in the 2010/11 season, Blackpool's attack was just as good as Spurs' because they scored 55 goals a piece. All this megede fegede you are yarning is trash.

What you are saying is like telling me no team deserves relegation in one single season because one season is not sufficient to adjudge a team the poorest team in the league.


I support this agment:
Hehehehe. Brain Spasm.
Ricthboy 2011. "A team has a better attack when it has far better attacking players" Let's just archive this for future reference. It doesn't matter how many goals they score. Succinctly put indeed!. How daft can one single person?
Get your foot up dude, you are stepping on your brains.

In case this is your first time Witchboy, there is a gulf of difference between attackers and attack.
And better attackers does not equal better attack. How hard can that be?

Since stats never always paint the full picture, we might as well wait for 3 seasons to know who the champions really are, that way we've had more a season's stats to prove the undoubtedly best team. Because the team that wins the PL is called the best team. So how are we allowed to call a team the best in one season, yet can't say another has a better attack based on one season? 

However according to your daft logic, "one team cannot be said to be better than the rest in one season"

I am sorry Alfa Ritchboy, in the 2010/11 season, Blackpool's attack was just as good as Spurs' because they scored 55 goals a piece.

In case this is your first time Witchboy, there is a gulf of difference between attackers and attack.
And better attackers does not equal better attack. How hard can that be?

chelseabmw:

manutd really deserved the trophy and they tried

Big Meat:

what a game of two halves.

sosereal:

Man city bunch of dumb players,only big names wit little sense.

ritchboy:

Can you show me where you THINK i said this so my bagel can laugh at your terrible comprehension skills?

You must be the phatest phool to ever walk the earth!

tkb417:

@Ritchie
Not trying to support Nateevs cos I saw some of his comments while the game was on - appalling

But the comment above from you "The team that wins the league is called the champion and NOT the best team" means what?

What's your problem? Are you trying to be funny?

You're not making sense,

The best team in the Europe is Barca not because of anything but because they won a tournament designed to pick the best team - Not a Champion. And if winning the league makes you a champion and not the best team, how do you conclude that a team is better if competitions won shouldn't be a barometer

Back to your argument with Nateevs

Its safe to say based on stat that Odemweinge was better than Torres last season but we all can conclude Torres suffered a dip in form and hence his below par performance. Nobody celebrates history but your current form and there is nothing that says Torres would come out of his 'issues'

So, using past glory to invalidate present stat wouldn't necessarily score u points in your debate. A man/player is as good as his present delivery. If all a player/team has to show as his worth is his past glory, then nothing more to say

The team with the best backline would be judged on 2 variables. Number of clean sheets and Games lost. A team with fewer goals conceded that lost many games might not necessarily be the best backline in the league /Vice versa

2 cents