An interesting take on things. Agreed, this season has certainly thrown up many surprises and irrespective of what anyone says the best team always wins by virtue of total points amassed.This season has been far more than the rogue portrayed in the media. Leicester won the PL because they were the most consistent team and they played the most effective football. Spurs, West Ham and Southampton also had good seasons while Arsenal, City, United and especially Chelsea all had problems. Within the game there seems to be a growing belief that dominating possession is no longer the means oe wearing the opposition down so that they crumble in the last half hour. Ranieri, more than any other manager in the PL realised that his team could not take City, Arsenal etc on in a quick passing festival of the beautiful game so he didn't try. If anything he acted on what Herbert Chapman preached in the 1920s and 30s: the longer you have the ball the less likely you are to score and the more you are in the opposition's half the more vulnerable you are. Unfortunately, in England this was interpreted as an endorsement of the long ball game, which Chapman never intended, but Ranieri has never adopted such a view. Successful teams keep possession and have players with pace. So you don't let them use their pace by defending very deep indeed and leaving very little space in the box. A high press is a purely defensive measure to allow the rest of the team to drop deep. But Ranieri did allow the other team to enjoy a lot of possession, but how many times did we see the other team make literally hundreds of meaningless passes on the edge of their box, looking for space that wasn't there, until a careless pass or a good tackle turned over possession, almost rugby style, allowing Leicester to break the last defensive line with one simple pass, a run by one of their lads and finally (usually) a ball to Vardy and a goal. This is what City couldn't/didn't cope with at home to Leicester or away at Southampton for that matter. What worries me slightly is that this is a fairly accurate description of Atletico's crucial away goal in Munich. Simeone plays the same game as Ranieri but he plays it better because he has better players. Bayern conceded a goal virtually without a Bayern player having set foot in his own half! United's possession game has been so sterile because they don't move the ball forward quickly enough and there are no cups for dominating possession. Martinez got the sack because all he seemed to care about was passing and possession, to the extent that you could almost believe he'd had the goal posts removed from Goodison so that his team wouldn't be distracted.
So, I think it has actually been a very interesting season, though a disappointing one for us in the PL, and I think Pep will spend his summer coming up with ways of dealing with sides who aren't at all alarmed at not having the ball for 70% of the time - in fact teams who prefer it that way.
What is the specific relevance of a stat that involves our record against the top 8 and bottom 3, other than we didn't do particularly well against the top 8 and the bottom 3? You may as well have said our record against the teams we didn't do very well against is as follows...Looking at the top eight teams record against each other and also against the bottom three teams, the points gained out of a possible sixty are as follows:
Leicester - 36
Arsenal - 35
W'Ham - 34
Scum - 33
Spurs - 32
Saints - 32
L'Pool - 25
Man City - 19
Shocking by our Club.
I take your point mate, but if you don't do well against the other potential champions and fail miserably against the also rans then you are not particularly good are you?What is the specific relevance of a stat that involves our record against the top 8 and bottom 3, other than we didn't do particularly well against the top 8 and the bottom 3? You may as well have said our record against the teams we didn't do very well against is as follows...
Or to put it another way, if you do badly against 10 teams in a 20 team league, you aren't going to challenge for the title. I think the results against the other top teams is relevant in the sense that there was a definite pattern there but the results away at the bottom three is probably a bit of an anomaly because by and large our results were good against the less good teams in the division.I take your point mate, but if you don't do well against the other potential champions and fail miserably against the also rans then you are not particularly good are you?
Can't disagree with any of thatThe standard of the league has probably been the worst in memory. Leicester have won the league at a canter by playing some pretty basic kick and run football that normally would struggle to get you above 6th or 7th, but all the usual contenders have been absolutely woeful. Spurs have been alright and that's about it. The general standard of the league though has been absolutely terrible, considering the amount of money in the league it's been pretty embarrassing how badly everyone has played
This is really bad. It shows how our relative success in the Cups came at a high price in terms of league points. However, I am inclined to agree with those advocating that we draw a line under this and move on. Little can be gained by indulging in sterile discussions about Pellers 3 years in charge been a success or a failure.Looking at the top eight teams record against each other and also against the bottom three teams, the points gained out of a possible sixty are as follows:
Leicester - 36
Arsenal - 35
W'Ham - 34
Scum - 33
Spurs - 32
Saints - 32
L'Pool - 25
Man City - 19
Shocking by our Club.