Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Manchester City - Guardiola confirmed

1235711

Comments

  • No one is stating stats matter more than goals.

    The point is that on their current record they very much have the makings of a side that will have the PL trophy well before the last whistle of the season.
  • Yes they do but a couple of months ago we were playing well and winning games and looked at least good enough for the play offs if not promotion but that's all changed now.

    Look at the stats.
  • iaitch said:

    Yes they do but a couple of months ago we were playing well and winning games and looked at least good enough for the play offs if not promotion but that's all changed now.

    Look at the stats.

    I guess but what point are you trying to make? That we can't know for sure what is going to happen in the future? Yeah there's some chance City will bottle it just as there is a chance that Charlton might win League One this year but both are currently unlikely on the basis of their current form.
  • iaitch said:

    Just checked the stats for Saturdays game, we had 55% possession, wow wow wow, how many points did we get for that? Absolutely fuck all because the opposition scored more goals than us!!!!

    That's the only stat that counts at the end of the match.

    Stats are interesting and tell a story if read correctly. And beyond that, a team getting some stats in their favour will eventually lead to affecting the stats that count.

    I don’t think anyone is obsessed with stats here, except perhaps when it comes to your frustration at people talking about them.

    As for City - richest country on the plant spends awesome amount of money on players, equipment and coaching staff (dwarfing most other clubs) and they win every game. I don’t know why anyone would be surprised by that.

    The net spend thing is a misnomer too - they’ve been spending big for nearly a decade, of course a clear-out is going to make some money in one window. But clearly not overall.

    Bony sold for 13m (he cost them 28m). Iheanacho was a huge profit admittedly (27m), albeit on a youngster they didn’t want to stick with. Fernando went for 5m and Nasri for 3m, and those two cost about 42m combined. And who can possibly explain West Ham spending 2m to loan Joe Hart!?

    What matters here is that none of those figures mean a damn thing to the owners, who effectively have unlimited funds. They’re not in football to make money. They’re not even in it to enjoy winning - sure they want to win stuff, but not for glory - it helps an oil state with very questionable human rights records to promote themselves, as they intend to do on every continent. And Sky, BT, The Guardian, The Sun et al are massively helping them achieve that here.

    I didn’t like it when Jack Walker bought the league, but I at least know he did it to bring glory to the club he loves. And City aren’t alone - the King Power group spent big for similar promotional reasons, and there are more examples in the league, and it won’t be long before every club is a marketing ploy for a rich group with ulterior, and perhaps even nefarious reasons.

    But hey, they’re scoring lots of good goals so let’s just watch that and ignore the rest. What’s the worst that could happen!?
  • liverpool 73% possesion everton 27% 1-1 ft.
  • iaitch said:

    Why did you lay back the bet so you're covered either way if you're so sure about them? Maybe you're doubting the stats?

    I was commenting on the game at Huddersfield when they looked a bit shaky when Huddersfield attacked them.

    You can quote stat after stat but it doesn't win you games re my possession stats on our game last Saturday.

    Next week City go into a league game having won their previous 14 league games, does that mean they will win next week?

    You say if City were to lose 4 games then United would have to win all their games to be champions, you're assuming that City will win their other 18 games then?

    What do you base that on? Oh yes stats again, they've won their last 14 so they win 18 out of their next 22.
    Yes, City look very good but as you know in football one defeat can change things very quickly.

    I'm not doubting the stats so far as City winning the PL are concerned but know what the right price should be and what represents value. And if doing so "frees up my stake" and guarantees that I win on a market come what may then I am happy with that. But I have never ever cashed out a bet with a bookmaker purely because the value is usually exceptionally poor. For example, I have ante post bets with three different firms on various combinations of City, Wolves, Wigan and Luton (doubles, trebles and accas) but wouldn't dream of cashing out. The value just isn't there.

    City lost during the week. But that didn't seem to change much simply because it was a weakened side and they had nothing to play for. However, if they lose in the League next week they might drift in the market and depending on the price I might, as I say, go in again.

    Equally, I don't follow stats blindly - you mention "possession" as a stat and you are absolutely spot on - Leicester won the PL with the worst possession stats in the division. Because Mahrez was always looking to find Vardy and two times out of three he wouldn't so they lost the ball. Arsenal will have the best possession stats because they want to play "pretty football" in the middle of the park and then walk the ball into the net.

    So stats aren't everything but, sometimes, one has to accept that the stats do back up what is actually happening. Scoring the most (and at 3 goals a game) and conceding the least are inescapable facts because it is those stats that mean that a team is likely to win the League. Not possession stats.

    On another subject, it's good to hear that Mourinho is still such a good loser - not only does he moan about the penalty that never was but goes into the City dressing room to remonstrate that they are celebrating their victory too much! I was listening to 5 live coming back from Canterbury last night and it was intriguing to hear how many United fans would have Pep over Mourinho in a hear beat. We'll just have to make do with Robbo.
  • JiMMy 85 said:

    iaitch said:

    Just checked the stats for Saturdays game, we had 55% possession, wow wow wow, how many points did we get for that? Absolutely fuck all because the opposition scored more goals than us!!!!

    That's the only stat that counts at the end of the match.

    Stats are interesting and tell a story if read correctly. And beyond that, a team getting some stats in their favour will eventually lead to affecting the stats that count.

    I don’t think anyone is obsessed with stats here, except perhaps when it comes to your frustration at people talking about them.

    As for City - richest country on the plant spends awesome amount of money on players, equipment and coaching staff (dwarfing most other clubs) and they win every game. I don’t know why anyone would be surprised by that.

    The net spend thing is a misnomer too - they’ve been spending big for nearly a decade, of course a clear-out is going to make some money in one window. But clearly not overall.

    Bony sold for 13m (he cost them 28m). Iheanacho was a huge profit admittedly (27m), albeit on a youngster they didn’t want to stick with. Fernando went for 5m and Nasri for 3m, and those two cost about 42m combined. And who can possibly explain West Ham spending 2m to loan Joe Hart!?

    What matters here is that none of those figures mean a damn thing to the owners, who effectively have unlimited funds. They’re not in football to make money. They’re not even in it to enjoy winning - sure they want to win stuff, but not for glory - it helps an oil state with very questionable human rights records to promote themselves, as they intend to do on every continent. And Sky, BT, The Guardian, The Sun et al are massively helping them achieve that here.

    I didn’t like it when Jack Walker bought the league, but I at least know he did it to bring glory to the club he loves. And City aren’t alone - the King Power group spent big for similar promotional reasons, and there are more examples in the league, and it won’t be long before every club is a marketing ploy for a rich group with ulterior, and perhaps even nefarious reasons.

    But hey, they’re scoring lots of good goals so let’s just watch that and ignore the rest. What’s the worst that could happen!?
    Can't argue with much of that - but the bottom line is that City have made a profit for the third consecutive year, play the best football and are going to win the PL. I think we'd settle for that rather than running at a loss, having to sell our best players, playing some very average football in the third tier of English football which we are, under this regime, destined to be stuck in for a long time.

    The dream for us is doing a Leicester because what they did was absolutely remarkable and they opened the door for all clubs of that stature. But that's all it is for us. A dream.
  • You can look at the stats how you like depending on what suits your argument. We had more possession but Portsmouth had more shots, so who should have won? The team that scored more goals of course.

    You like your stats, I'm ok with them they can be used either way.

    City will be a very short price in all League games but doesn't mean that they will win.

    You quote Leicester's stats, people will argue how could they win the league with least possession but they did because as you say they got if forward and scored goals and won games and accumulated more points than anyone else.

    Ok we disagree on stats, lets not fall out about that as we all have our own opinions.

    I will agree with you on Mourinho, the most odious man in football, never liked him, never will.

    Maybe second most odious is Herera, always diving, rolling around, was never a penalty yesterday maybe a yellow for simulation ie. diving/cheating/gamesmanship or whatever you want to call it.

    Good luck with your betting, think you have a winner with City and may collect early next year the way they are going judging by the stats haha.
  • edited December 2017

    JiMMy 85 said:

    iaitch said:

    Just checked the stats for Saturdays game, we had 55% possession, wow wow wow, how many points did we get for that? Absolutely fuck all because the opposition scored more goals than us!!!!

    That's the only stat that counts at the end of the match.

    Stats are interesting and tell a story if read correctly. And beyond that, a team getting some stats in their favour will eventually lead to affecting the stats that count.

    I don’t think anyone is obsessed with stats here, except perhaps when it comes to your frustration at people talking about them.

    As for City - richest country on the plant spends awesome amount of money on players, equipment and coaching staff (dwarfing most other clubs) and they win every game. I don’t know why anyone would be surprised by that.

    The net spend thing is a misnomer too - they’ve been spending big for nearly a decade, of course a clear-out is going to make some money in one window. But clearly not overall.

    Bony sold for 13m (he cost them 28m). Iheanacho was a huge profit admittedly (27m), albeit on a youngster they didn’t want to stick with. Fernando went for 5m and Nasri for 3m, and those two cost about 42m combined. And who can possibly explain West Ham spending 2m to loan Joe Hart!?

    What matters here is that none of those figures mean a damn thing to the owners, who effectively have unlimited funds. They’re not in football to make money. They’re not even in it to enjoy winning - sure they want to win stuff, but not for glory - it helps an oil state with very questionable human rights records to promote themselves, as they intend to do on every continent. And Sky, BT, The Guardian, The Sun et al are massively helping them achieve that here.

    I didn’t like it when Jack Walker bought the league, but I at least know he did it to bring glory to the club he loves. And City aren’t alone - the King Power group spent big for similar promotional reasons, and there are more examples in the league, and it won’t be long before every club is a marketing ploy for a rich group with ulterior, and perhaps even nefarious reasons.

    But hey, they’re scoring lots of good goals so let’s just watch that and ignore the rest. What’s the worst that could happen!?
    the bottom line is that City have made a profit for the third consecutive year
    Ok let's look at this a little more, cos I don't think that is the bottom line!

    You are citing the last three years of transfer windows for City turning a profit. Indeed, the sheer size of their squad made that possible, but let's look at the individual profits/ losses they made on some these guys (*this is not an exhaustive list):

    - Negredo (-£1m)
    - Jovetic (-£12m)
    - Dzeko (-£14m)
    - Bony (£-17m)
    - Nolito (-£8m)
    - Fernando (-£8m)
    - Kolarov (-£15m)
    - Nasri (-£21m)
    - Milner (-£17m) (Left on a free)
    - Caballero (-£8m) (Left on a free)
    - Clichy (-£6m) (Left on a free)
    - Rodwell (-£3m)
    - Barry (-£11m)

    To put that into context, City have made a loss on those players (£140m) that is higher than the ENTIRE transfer expenditure of Charlton since 1905 (just over £110m or so by my count, obviously not adjusted for inflation).

    Admittedly, some of those players put in a good stint and, as they aged, their market value dropped. But then again, a non-oil rich club wouldn't have been able to spend such huge outlays on players with such little sell-on value anyway.

    For balance, here are some of the players they did make a profit on:

    - Unal (+£10m)
    - Nastasic (+£4m)
    - Mooy (+£10m)
    - Iheanacho (+£25m)

    They also made some tidy profits on youngsters whom they didn't have to 'buy', so it's hard to say what kind of profit they were making without knowing how much it cost to train them up.

    Even compared to the traditional big spenders, say, United over the years or Chelsea in the early Abramovich era, they are hugely and consistently spending on players that leave for far, far less than they paid for them.

    Ultimately, the idea that City are turning a profit through good business management is, at best, misleading.

    The current City squad is worth £550m in transfer fees. That's 5 times more than we have spent in our entire history, and it's using money made by a family who rules a country that locks up gay people for being in love. Where having an affair leads to 100 lashes in a public flogging... now that's the bottom line!
  • And before that they had the Thai premier who used to torture his political opponents.

    All fine and upstanding according to the Premier League.

  • Sponsored links:


  • JohnBoyUK said:

    For some perspective. City spent £100m on 2 full backs. Ridiculous. How can anyone compete with that?!

    Pep and the unlimited millions at his disposal at every club he has ever been at can fcuk off.

    Would love to see Burnley make top 4, even at the expense of Spurs.

    Football really is dead.

    You could probably have competed better if you hadn't spent over 100m on Sissoko, Soldado, Janssen and Lamela.
  • JohnBoyUK said:

    For some perspective. City spent £100m on 2 full backs. Ridiculous. How can anyone compete with that?!

    Pep and the unlimited millions at his disposal at every club he has ever been at can fcuk off.

    Would love to see Burnley make top 4, even at the expense of Spurs.

    Football really is dead.

    A bit of perspetive.

    City bought three players this summer for a total of £123.5m but sold players to the value of £78.5m so had a net spend of £45m.

    United spent £115m on two players and got back in sales just £9m so had a net spend of £106m.

    Spurs spent £85.9m and got back £65.8m so had a net spend of £20.1m. One of the players they sold was indeed a full back, Walker, to City for £45m and he has become a very important part of the way City plays. But guess what? Spurs signed another defender, Sanchez for £42m.
    Where do you get your figures from?

    Interesting to do a Spurs v Man City expenditure breakdown over the last 7 seasons. Source = https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/

    image

    I've only gone back as far as 2010/11, the first season Spurs played in the CL when Levy signed Van der Vaart.

    Just let that sink in for a minute.

    Everyone knows that Spurs can't compete financially. Thats why our model is based on sustainability. Levy is well known for balancing the books. The net spend goes to prove that. I don't have an issue with it. I'm proud we go about it the right way although at times I would have like Levy to flash the cash a little but I can't say I would be comfortable with spending money like City do. Good luck to them though, I won't be sad to see Karl Walker lifting the PL trophy at the end of the season, he was a great servant for us for 9 seasons.

    The sooner everyone realises their place in the football feeding chain then it's a lot easier to accept. We know Kane, Eriksen and Alli will be sold on for profit. Its the model. Yeah, it'll hurt but Spurs is a business. The books need to balance. Alderweirald will likely move on at the end of this season. Not signed a contract and will only have 12 months left and would Levy let him go on a free? very unlikely.

    When I said football is dead, I meant generally, in terms of the PL. The gap at the top gets bigger and bigger, year after year. How can anyone compete financially with the top 6 clubs? Its the richest league in the world and the money is beyond ridiculous. Leicester winning the PL a couple of seasons ago was the best thing that has happened to the PL in a decade or more, even although it was at the expense of Spurs at the time. It gave the smaller clubs hope. But lets be honest, is any club like that even remotely going to come close to doing it again? very very unlikely.

    But when your chairman/owner can go and spend £100m on two full backs, it does make your life somewhat easier as a coach. For all the plaudits Pep gets, he has had unlimited millions at every club he has been at. I'd like to see him coach a team with a fairly conservative transfer budget to see what he could achieve. Its the exactly the same with Mourinho.



    spursvmancity.jpg
    478 x 232 - 68K
  • iaitch said:

    And before that they had the Thai premier who used to torture his political opponents.

    All fine and upstanding according to the Premier League.

    Some very good points there. But we shouldn't think that City are the only club that makes a loss in the transfer market - look at United. They let a player go on a "free" - and then bought him back for £90m!!!! They have spent £640m in the last four seasons and that hasn't bought them the title has it?

    So, whilst money does help, it sure doesn't guarantee success and different managers win titles in different ways. Mourinho has a way of setting his team up so that they are effective and if that means "parking the bus" then he will do just that. Pep is absolutely insistent that all his teams play the same way - and it starts from the back. I, for one, was astonished when he banished Joe Hart but who would argue with that now? He also recognised that his full backs were too cumbersome to be able to do that and replaced them.

    Look at how much more comfortable Stones is in playing Pep's way and also how much better at defending and reading the game he is too. Look at how Sterling is now producing an end product. And these are English players. Pochettino is doing the same for our national team with their English lads.

    A journalist was on 5 Live last night saying that he would struggle to find a single player who has played under him who does not think that he is a good coach. Pep gets his players to play in a way that allows them to express themselves - and become better players too. But he is strong enough to call Toure's bluff like when he refused to play for City and to admonish the likes of Jesus for not passing to Aguero (or vice versa) when that is the easier and best option.
  • iaitch said:

    And before that they had the Thai premier who used to torture his political opponents.

    All fine and upstanding according to the Premier League.

    Some very good points there. But we shouldn't think that City are the only club that makes a loss in the transfer market - look at United. They let a player go on a "free" - and then bought him back for £90m!!!! They have spent £640m in the last four seasons and that hasn't bought them the title has it?

    So, whilst money does help, it sure doesn't guarantee success and different managers win titles in different ways. Mourinho has a way of setting his team up so that they are effective and if that means "parking the bus" then he will do just that. Pep is absolutely insistent that all his teams play the same way - and it starts from the back. I, for one, was astonished when he banished Joe Hart but who would argue with that now? He also recognised that his full backs were too cumbersome to be able to do that and replaced them.

    Look at how much more comfortable Stones is in playing Pep's way and also how much better at defending and reading the game he is too. Look at how Sterling is now producing an end product. And these are English players. Pochettino is doing the same for our national team with their English lads.

    A journalist was on 5 Live last night saying that he would struggle to find a single player who has played under him who does not think that he is a good coach. Pep gets his players to play in a way that allows them to express themselves - and become better players too. But he is strong enough to call Toure's bluff like when he refused to play for City and to admonish the likes of Jesus for not passing to Aguero (or vice versa) when that is the easier and best option.
    I don't think anyone is arguing with you on the qualities Pep brings, or the quality of signing he asks for. He's the best manager in the world, certainly for that level of football.

    Which is exactly what I'd expect from the richest state/ club in the world - they didn't just buy the best players, they went out and got the best manager in the world and promised him as much money as he wants to turn City into a dominant force.
  • edited December 2017

    Would love a billionaire to buy Charlton.

    Mmmmmm.......... I wonder what’s two_sheds up to these days?
  • That lad Kevin de Bruyne is different gravy, one of the finest players I have ever seen. You have to marvel at him at times.
  • Riviera said:

    I think I heard, I may be wrong though, that West Ham have the 4th highest wage bill in Europe!

    I believe it is 14th which is still crazy, no wonder they need the tax payer to fund them.
  • The reality is that we all know that without the money Chelsea and City would be nowhere near the top 4 in the country. Corrupt money has distorted the natural food chain in football.

    This is what grates on me the most. Those 2 teams success, unlike Leicester, hasn't been earned or merited. If Abramovic and the Kuwaiti owners had rocked up at Everton and Spurs they would be dominating now rather than Chelsea and City.

    I hate football for what it is now. Big business and like F1 now becoming an unequal sport.
  • The reality is that we all know that without the money Chelsea and City would be nowhere near the top 4 in the country. Corrupt money has distorted the natural food chain in football.

    This is what grates on me the most. Those 2 teams success, unlike Leicester, hasn't been earned or merited. If Abramovic and the Kuwaiti owners had rocked up at Everton and Spurs they would be dominating now rather than Chelsea and City.

    I hate football for what it is now. Big business and like F1 now becoming an unequal sport.

    Football has always been dominated by the clubs with the most money to spend - the main difference is the sums involved.

    I can't remember which year it was but until the 1980s (I think) all league games gate revenues used to be shared between the home and away clubs. Changing that was the start of the bigger clubs having more money than the rest.
  • And it will get worse if the big clubs can negotiate their own TV deal.
  • Sponsored links:


  • iaitch said:

    iaitch said:

    Everyone gets obsessed by stats, doesn't win you games.

    Huddersfield could have one pass that they score from meanwhile City take 50 passes to get from the goalie to their own 18 yard box.

    Here's some stats for City this season (assuming the penalty shoot out against Wolves counts as a win- but if we don't then we can't, as we rightly do, claim the game against Mourinho's Chelsea):

    Played 20
    Won 19
    Drawn 1
    Lost 0
    For 57
    Against 12

    I doubt whether one will find too many of our PL teams over a season as dominant across all the competitions that they have entered - even Arsenal's Invicibles only had a 63% win rate over the course of the season.

    Yes City weren't at their best yesterday (neither were the other sides over the weekend that played in the CL during the week) but, also, their opposition will now set themselves up with 11 behind the ball and to hit City on the break - even United will probably do so when they meet City in two weeks time despite being at home. I still wouldn't bet against City.

    More stats but they haven't won any trophies have they?

    They didn't look brilliant in defence so if a team goes at them they may be vulnerable.
    Well no, but no-one has; it's December. If your attitude to football mid-season is 'it doesn't matter because they haven't won' then what's the point in even discussing football? We should shutter this place until May and talk about it once the dust settles. Stats aren't the be all and end all but they give us something to discuss before we reach the business end of the season. City look great this season and they're miles ahead. The stats are great for discussing that
  • iaitch said:

    iaitch said:

    Everyone gets obsessed by stats, doesn't win you games.

    Huddersfield could have one pass that they score from meanwhile City take 50 passes to get from the goalie to their own 18 yard box.

    Here's some stats for City this season (assuming the penalty shoot out against Wolves counts as a win- but if we don't then we can't, as we rightly do, claim the game against Mourinho's Chelsea):

    Played 20
    Won 19
    Drawn 1
    Lost 0
    For 57
    Against 12

    I doubt whether one will find too many of our PL teams over a season as dominant across all the competitions that they have entered - even Arsenal's Invicibles only had a 63% win rate over the course of the season.

    Yes City weren't at their best yesterday (neither were the other sides over the weekend that played in the CL during the week) but, also, their opposition will now set themselves up with 11 behind the ball and to hit City on the break - even United will probably do so when they meet City in two weeks time despite being at home. I still wouldn't bet against City.

    More stats but they haven't won any trophies have they?

    They didn't look brilliant in defence so if a team goes at them they may be vulnerable.
    Well no, but no-one has; it's December. If your attitude to football mid-season is 'it doesn't matter because they haven't won' then what's the point in even discussing football? We should shutter this place until May and talk about it once the dust settles. Stats aren't the be all and end all but they give us something to discuss before we reach the business end of the season. City look great this season and they're miles ahead. The stats are great for discussing that
    Arsene Wenger has
  • edited December 2017
    Riviera said:

    Yes City will win the league but it's thrown up quite an interesting situation. Surely Liverpool, Utd, Chelsea and Spuds are going to concentrate far more on the CL now? They can all be in the 1/4's and maybe this will lead to a few upsets in the Prem around CL fixtures. Could open the way for an unfashionable team to sneak into the top four.

    # Team Pl W D L F A GD Pts
    1 Man City 16 15 1 0 48 11 37 46
    2 Man Utd 16 11 2 3 36 11 25 35
    3 Chelsea 17 11 2 4 31 14 17 35
    4 Burnley 17 9 4 4 16 12 4 31

    sd.jpg
    225 x 224 - 6K
  • Riviera said:

    Riviera said:

    Yes City will win the league but it's thrown up quite an interesting situation. Surely Liverpool, Utd, Chelsea and Spuds are going to concentrate far more on the CL now? They can all be in the 1/4's and maybe this will lead to a few upsets in the Prem around CL fixtures. Could open the way for an unfashionable team to sneak into the top four.

    # Team Pl W D L F A GD Pts
    1 Man City 16 15 1 0 48 11 37 46
    2 Man Utd 16 11 2 3 36 11 25 35
    3 Chelsea 17 11 2 4 31 14 17 35
    4 Burnley 17 9 4 4 16 12 4 31

    I don't think the rest of the "big 6" can afford to concentrate too much on the CL, as for all of them failing to qualify for the CL next season would be disastrous, and realistically 4th in the PL is going to be easier than winning the CL

    It will be interesting what Arsenal concentrate on, Man U showed last season that sometimes it's better to go for the Europa league than the fight for 4th
  • Expected goals is really the only stat worth looking at.
  • Riviera said:

    Riviera said:

    Yes City will win the league but it's thrown up quite an interesting situation. Surely Liverpool, Utd, Chelsea and Spuds are going to concentrate far more on the CL now? They can all be in the 1/4's and maybe this will lead to a few upsets in the Prem around CL fixtures. Could open the way for an unfashionable team to sneak into the top four.

    # Team Pl W D L F A GD Pts
    1 Man City 16 15 1 0 48 11 37 46
    2 Man Utd 16 11 2 3 36 11 25 35
    3 Chelsea 17 11 2 4 31 14 17 35
    4 Burnley 17 9 4 4 16 12 4 31

    Leicester on a real run at the moment and only 5 points off a CL place - and they've been here before.
  • Riviera said:

    Riviera said:

    Yes City will win the league but it's thrown up quite an interesting situation. Surely Liverpool, Utd, Chelsea and Spuds are going to concentrate far more on the CL now? They can all be in the 1/4's and maybe this will lead to a few upsets in the Prem around CL fixtures. Could open the way for an unfashionable team to sneak into the top four.

    # Team Pl W D L F A GD Pts
    1 Man City 16 15 1 0 48 11 37 46
    2 Man Utd 16 11 2 3 36 11 25 35
    3 Chelsea 17 11 2 4 31 14 17 35
    4 Burnley 17 9 4 4 16 12 4 31

    Leicester on a real run at the moment and only 5 points off a CL place - and they've been here before.
    Are Leicester unfashionable again? I think they are.
  • Riviera said:

    Riviera said:

    Riviera said:

    Yes City will win the league but it's thrown up quite an interesting situation. Surely Liverpool, Utd, Chelsea and Spuds are going to concentrate far more on the CL now? They can all be in the 1/4's and maybe this will lead to a few upsets in the Prem around CL fixtures. Could open the way for an unfashionable team to sneak into the top four.

    # Team Pl W D L F A GD Pts
    1 Man City 17 16 1 0 52 11 41 49
    2 Man Utd 17 12 2 3 37 11 26 38
    3 Chelsea 17 11 2 4 31 14 17 35
    4 Burnley 17 9 4 4 16 12 4 31

    Leicester on a real run at the moment and only 5 points off a CL place - and they've been here before.
    Are Leicester unfashionable again? I think they are.
    I don't think one title makes a team fashionable. More a team with a cult following. But the other more fashionable sides will probably be more worried about them than Burnley who are where they are because of their defence (they score less then one to every three of City) - and the current injuries in that department might restrict their progress.
  • Riviera said:

    Riviera said:

    Riviera said:

    Yes City will win the league but it's thrown up quite an interesting situation. Surely Liverpool, Utd, Chelsea and Spuds are going to concentrate far more on the CL now? They can all be in the 1/4's and maybe this will lead to a few upsets in the Prem around CL fixtures. Could open the way for an unfashionable team to sneak into the top four.

    # Team Pl W D L F A GD Pts
    1 Man City 17 16 1 0 52 11 41 49
    2 Man Utd 17 12 2 3 37 11 26 38
    3 Chelsea 17 11 2 4 31 14 17 35
    4 Burnley 17 9 4 4 16 12 4 31

    Leicester on a real run at the moment and only 5 points off a CL place - and they've been here before.
    Are Leicester unfashionable again? I think they are.
    I don't think one title makes a team fashionable. More a team with a cult following. But the other more fashionable sides will probably be more worried about them than Burnley who are where they are because of their defence (they score less then one to every three of City) - and the current injuries in that department might restrict their progress.
    Burnley lost Keane in the summer, then lost Heaton to injury. Lowton has been injured, Mee has missed a couple of games, it’s down to the coaching and tactics, rather than individuals
  • Riviera said:

    Riviera said:

    Riviera said:

    Yes City will win the league but it's thrown up quite an interesting situation. Surely Liverpool, Utd, Chelsea and Spuds are going to concentrate far more on the CL now? They can all be in the 1/4's and maybe this will lead to a few upsets in the Prem around CL fixtures. Could open the way for an unfashionable team to sneak into the top four.

    # Team Pl W D L F A GD Pts
    1 Man City 17 16 1 0 52 11 41 49
    2 Man Utd 17 12 2 3 37 11 26 38
    3 Chelsea 17 11 2 4 31 14 17 35
    4 Burnley 17 9 4 4 16 12 4 31

    Leicester on a real run at the moment and only 5 points off a CL place - and they've been here before.
    Are Leicester unfashionable again? I think they are.
    I don't think one title makes a team fashionable. More a team with a cult following. But the other more fashionable sides will probably be more worried about them than Burnley who are where they are because of their defence (they score less then one to every three of City) - and the current injuries in that department might restrict their progress.
    Burnley lost Keane in the summer, then lost Heaton to injury. Lowton has been injured, Mee has missed a couple of games, it’s down to the coaching and tacti cs, rather than individuals
    Not doubting that or that their manager is doing a fantastic job but they don't have the ability to chase a game - they have had six one nil wins this season and rely on keeping that clean sheet and then nicking a goal with only two points picked up all season when behind.

    Ward is now injured too and eventually all these will catch up with them - they have Spurs, Liverpool and Man Utd twice in the next seven games and how they come out of those will determine whether they are serious CL contenders or destined for mid table safety.
Sign In or Register to comment.