** Summer Transfer Window 2011/12 Season Rumours/Signings **

Status
Not open for further replies.
All the way back in late 2008:

the fact remains that nearly every season it is the games between the big four sides that determine the eventual champions.

In four of the last five seasons, the team winning most points against the rest of the ‘top four’ has gone on to win the title

That was all the way back in late 2008, my point when I first mentioned the mini-league was that it is no longer as strong an indicator, but to say "that the indicator is irrelevant" is clearly wrong when it used to be such a strong indicator.

Hope that's clear for you now. :p
 
All the way back in late 2008:



That was all the way back in late 2008, my point when I first mentioned the mini-league was that it is no longer as strong an indicator, but to say "that the indicator is irrelevant" is clearly wrong when it used to be such a strong indicator.

Hope that's clear for you now. :p

By all means go back to 2008. Well done. It was an idicator in 2008 because thats how the league finished......It did not DICTATE how the league finished.

Its like a reverse type thing.

Im not sure how simply i can put it. If you are a spurs fan you can rejoyce in beating Man Utd and your place in the mythical "top 4 table" but if you lose 2-0 to Norwich the next week is the top 4 table still relevant?
 
I guess the point maybe is that before the 'top 6' would all beat the teams below about the same i.e. mostly win with the occasional slip-up so the matches between them was the big difference.

What you could draw now is that the gap has closed, whether the teams outside have stepped up their game or the top 6 have got worse so more points are dropped through games with lower placed teams making the games between the top 6 less relevant to final placings.

AMIRITE?
 
Is Stag Spurs DM or Nick?
Or is that still Rizl or whatever his name was?

I'm definitely a double account with my join date...

What do those accounts have in common, the inability for readers to understand the point they're making or merely veritable verbosity?
 
I guess the point maybe is that before the 'top 6' would all beat the teams below about the same i.e. mostly win with the occasional slip-up so the matches between them was the big difference.

What you could draw now is that the gap has closed, whether the teams outside have stepped up their game or the top 6 have got worse so more points are dropped through games with lower placed teams making the games between the top 6 less relevant to final placings.

AMIRITE?

No.
 
More stories now saying Nasri has definately refused a new contract and if he has to will play out a year and leave on a free.

Arsenal with another ridiculous plan, I've said before the issues isn't if he stays or not, when a player trys to leave and you reward this with a massive pay increase to try to get them to stay, and he still turns you down. Well, you look pathetic, weak, ridiculous AND you make other players who stay think, well why are you offering him 115k a week, wheres my pay bump, I actually want to stay.

The second it was clear Nasri wanted to leave and refused a circa 80-90k contract, that should have been it, tell City they can have him for 20mil, great piece of business, no upset players, we get a buttload of cash for a player with a year left, great for everyone.

Instead we played the, lets beg a player to stay, offer absurd wages, look ridiculous, lose the fight anyway, look weak to potential players we want to bring in, and upset players who stay, seriously, could we have done anything worse at all?

So lets say best case scenario now, Nasri goes, we get 115k a week, Cesc stays, woo, but now RVP and CEsc are going, wtf, we both had a better season than Nasri, we've both been here way longer, wtf haven't we been offered 115k a week............. whole thing is ridiculous. We've played the wage game so well for so long(for older/best players anyway) yet lately our handling of it has become a joke.

ADebayor, "I want to go to milan, I love them, I love, x, I love Y, I'll play anywhere, how much are you offering sure I'll come", then the summer ends up with Milan telling him to shove it up his ass due to asking for obscene wages. Arsenal reward for this behaviour, double his wages, woo.
 
Last edited:
** Summer Transfer Window 2011/12 Season Rumours/Signings **




NOT THE THREAD TO BE TRYING TO ARGUE THIS RUBBISH!!!! GET BACK ON TOPIC!!!!

I get the impression you want to say something Azza? Well, out with it then. :p

Rangers have signed Lee Wallace from Hearts for £1.5m on a 5 year deal, bit of a shame as Hearts were hoping to keep him as a product of the youth team. I think the fee could prove to be a bargain for Rangers though as he's got years ahead of him and he should be able to make the step up to playing in Europe more regularly well.
 
So Mancini wanted 5 or 6 new players if city were going to challenge for the title. Shocking how little half a billion buys you these days...
 
Chelsea have signed Oriol Romeu from Barcelona for ~£5mil.

Who? :p Well actually he plays for the spain u20s and has played in the barca first team before despite being 19. Ultimately he didn't think he was gonna get play time (given barca's rather strong midfield) so he didn't sign a contract extension so only had 1 year left hence the cheap price. Could be a steal?
 
Regarding this "indicator" thing, it clearly isn't "irrelevant" because 6 games out of a total of only 38 is definitely relevant. The higher you finish in the 'minileague', by definition the more points you will have got relative to 3 other teams in that league, since it is a subset of the main league.

The point I'm making is that even if you set aside the concept that beating your rivals is good because it also limits their points in addition to earning you points, just viewing it in raw terms the more points you earn from a given set of 6 matches the better, regardless of who it is against.

So in actual fact this 'minileague' indicator is almost selffulfilling because the higher you finish in a minileague of 4 teams, the more likely you are to finish higher up league. You cold apply that to any group of four teams, you could have Chelsea, Everton, Sunderland and Blackburn, the higher up that minileague you finish the better.

In fact from a statistical analysis point of view, it'd be very interesting to see this indicator compared with all the other possible minileague combinations.
 
Regarding this "indicator" thing, it clearly isn't "irrelevant" because 6 games out of a total of only 38 is definitely relevant. The higher you finish in the 'minileague', by definition the more points you will have got relative to 3 other teams in that league, since it is a subset of the main league.

The point I'm making is that even if you set aside the concept that beating your rivals is good because it also limits their points in addition to earning you points, just viewing it in raw terms the more points you earn from a given set of 6 matches the better, regardless of who it is against.

So in actual fact this 'minileague' indicator is almost selffulfilling because the higher you finish in a minileague of 4 teams, the more likely you are to finish higher up league. You cold apply that to any group of four teams, you could have Chelsea, Everton, Sunderland and Blackburn, the higher up that minileague you finish the better.

In fact from a statistical analysis point of view, it'd be very interesting to see this indicator compared with all the other possible minileague combinations.

It is not irrelevant in terms of games but it is irrelevant in terms of being an indicator of who will win the league or who will finish above who.

In the example given Liverpool were in 2nd place yet over the "real" season they failed to make it into Europe. Those are the facts. Despite claiming this minileague to show how close the title race was Man Utd won by what in the end? 9 points? In those terms its completely meaningless because it misses out huge other factors that HAVE to be included in order to arrive at the conclusion as to who will win the league.

In the broadest sense the games themselves are of course very important as in each case it allows you to gain a 3 point advantage over your rival in one match. In theory if you beat all your closest rivals at the top of the league you SHOULD also be good enough to beat the lesser teams so therefore the team winning said minileague would have a decent chance of winning the overall title. However the Liverpool example i mentioned shows just how irrelevant it can be to final placings.
 
therefore the team winning said minileague would have a decent chance of winning the overall title. However the Liverpool example i mentioned shows just how irrelevant it can be to final placings.

Is this in relation to last year?

The point you are missing is Liverpool were not actually "in" the mini league for their results against the top teams to have any bearing on where they finished in relation to them.
They would have needed to be there or there abouts for a result against the top for to impact on their title chances or league postion against them
And last season there was no point where they were.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom