Suarez's goals don't count because he scores against **** teams and now Liverpool's wins don't count because we've beaten **** teams. I love you DM.
I haven't said either of those things, I say if someone has scored 462 goals, but only against the bottom three, it means less to ME than if they'd scored say 462 goals against the top three, or say 2/3rds against the bottom half and 1/3 against the top half.
There's nothing wrong or bad about scoring 58 against Norwich, but if you would have won with a single goal and he fails to score a similar amount of goals against better teams which results in dropped points then I factor that in to how I rate ANY player, not just Suarez.
Can you honestly say different, would you not rate a striker more for scoring 4 against City than against Fulham? Do you not rate a win over City or Chelsea more than a win against Norwich or Fulham? If so that is rather odd.
The vast majority of seasons the title would change hands if the winning team hadn't done as well as they did against the top 6, with the guys who just miss out usually winning say less than 50% of the games while the guys who win usually win more than 50% of those games.
As yet Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool have pretty damn awful records against the top half, one or two wins each pretty much and few if any against the strongest opposition.
Could highlight that Suarez has scored against, Sunderland, Fulham Palace, West Ham, West brom, Norwich, otherwise known as all but one of the bottom 7 teams and the one missing one is Cardiff, 14 of his 17 goals have come against . Most of those teams he scored against have been so bad they've fired their managers and have been crap against almost everyone. Fat Sam and Houghton aren't that far from the chop either. Suarez's scoring record is exceptionally clearly less good against the top half(which it should be to some degree for most players) but 14 to 3? top vs bottom? Part of the difference in this scoring rate is the reason they are failing to pick up points against top half teams.