A season is definitely not long enough for luck to even out over.
Leicester For The Title?
- Thread starter singlerider
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
I don't think luck ever comes into it. If your game or season etc. hinges on a refereeing mistake for example, then you haven't played well enough the rest of the time. The better sides make their own "luck", putting themselves in a position where the little peculiarities aren't enough to knock them off their game.
The only real exception to that could be injuries, but even those can be explained by nutrition, training, posture etc. most of the time.
If Sturridge & countinho were injury free I'd argue we'd be there or thereabouts even with Mignolet sabotaging things.
Had Leicester suffered two or three serious injuries in key areas they'd be mid table.
Had Leicester suffered two or three serious injuries in key areas they'd be mid table.
Well it does come into it. If your season rests on a refereeing decision, then so does someone else's. So is the team that falls on the right end of that decision the one that played better all season?
I agree that you do make your own luck to an extent. But sometimes injuries, bad refereeing decisions and other factors can all line up against you. Obviously there's no point in complaining about the injuries(except if the club itself is at fault), but a bad run of refereeing decisions can lead to a couple of point swing, and that's the luck factor.
If they put things in place to stop the likelihood of refs getting it wrong(video/simplify rules etc), then there'd be less luck involved, but it definitely exists now.
The point about Leicester is that a lot of things have aligned for them this season, and I think everyone would agree they were not by design. They haven't been planning this season for years, everything has just fallen into place. They may end up being deserved winners, but there's no doubt that there's a huge element of luck in the way it's worked out for them.
I guess the counter to that would be whether the significance of that mistake is your own making or not. For example, when Liverpool lost out to Man City the season before last you could argue that it was the Chelsea defeat and Gerrard's slip - but only if those were the only points dropped that season.
It's all relative in the end and I guess it depends on your outlook on things.
Absolutely, there was a perfect storm at the beginning of the season that they have benefitted from and they used that to create the form and momentum that might just see them win the title. They've still had to play well enough to put those points on the board though.
Last edited:
I'm getting really quite annoyed with all the media fawning and backtracking. Tony Cascarino is in today's Times telling everyone that "Leicester's Rise is No Fluke" and explaining clearly how brilliantly planned and clever their campaign has been, with Leicester carefully signing players who fitted their style and approach.
I imagine in Leicesters planning and goal setting meetings over the past few years, they have mentioned title ambitions in 2016(or any year in the next 5) around about zero times.
It's irritating isn't it? Well not so much where Leicester are concerned but Spurs do my head in.
They've a thin squad but have been ridiculously lucky in having absolutely no injuries to key players (Kane, Lloris, Alderweireld etc) whatsoever for a couple of seasons now. If they had even a fraction of our injury woes they'd be where we are or worse off. Instead their counting fans are dreaming of the title and banging on about how amazing a manager Pochettino is and how mediocre Klopp has been.
I fucking hate Spurs.
Of course that's true. When they played us at Anfield on Boxing Day 2014, they were as good a side as I'd seen us play that season. They struggled last season but occasionally hinted at hitting the heights, the games against United and Chelsea being others in the last couple of seasons where they've really looked like a good side. Of course, alot of teams have days like that, but they came up and stayed up and have played some wonderful stuff in the process, have attracted a relatively successful manager and put together a side that plays as a team. Like the Huth point earlier, he's often been considered terrible, but when he first came through he was immensely promising, maybe that potential has been realised late, and fair play to Leicester for capitalising with decisions like that.
Luck or not though, if they win it, they will be deserved winners because for most of this season they've been the most consistent and difficult to break down, they've also played some tremendous football.
15 wins and only 2 defeats - no one else matches that. They are also joint top on goals scored with City on 47.
I don't think anyone can deny that if they get the most points, they deserve to win it.
The point was more about how they got into that situation, was it be design?
The point was more about how they got into that situation, was it be design?
Well they have. I don't think the latter point is really something to beat them with. They are the best "team" in the league at present - settled system, players that suit the set up and it works. So I'm sure on some level they have carefully selected their signings, otherwise they wouldn't be performing so well. It's like saying us being where we are isn't down to misguided transfer policy, of course it is.
A agree about the OTT fawning like.
Barney Ronay, Alan Smith, Chris Bascombe, David Hytner, Daniel taylor, alan smith, Jim white, jeff powell, matt lawton, phil mcnulty
Just a few of the journalists who predicted Leicester would be relegated.
Just a few of the journalists who predicted Leicester would be relegated.
Most of the same players were almost relegated last season.
Well which is it then? The manager is shit and the players aren't good enough going off previous seasons, yet here we are. It must work on some level. I agree there is some luck element, but luck only gets you so far. It doesn't bridge the gap between relegation candidates and potential champions.
Yeah I agree @Windom Earle ... but as I've said, my comments were not directed at Leicester but at Jexy's and Dreamy's generalisation !
Team X plays Team Y and the referee allows an offside goal to Team Y at one end and doesn't give a stonewall penalty to Team X at the other. Team X loses the title by a point (or 2 or 3, it wouldn't matter in this example). It's now bollocks to say they should have made their own luck.
Another perfect example of how luck/fate plays a helping, or smiting, hand.
In a nutshell. I can't wait for the day football has a system in place such as Rugby or Cricket (it doesn't have to be as convoluted).
Are Team X and Team Y playing in a two team league?
It's irrelevant ! That's a 6 point swing and you're trying to say they should make it up. That's ridiculous.
Why? When we were winning everything in sight, some folks used to say it would be nice if someone else won it for a change. I didn't understand that then and I still don't. How will it improve the league?
I'm not and it is relevant. The premier league is won or lost over the course of 38 games. If Team X lose the title on the last day of the season to this refereeing error then that is shitty but it won't be the only game in the season they lost points, and in a lot of cases they will have dropped points because they simply didn't play well enough.
I hear what you are saying and I agree to a point, but championships aren't won or lost on the outcome of one incident, they are won or lost based on the accumulation of points over an entire season.
Yep. We lost the league because of Gerrard's slip apparently. Nothing to do with the points dropped earlier in the season, the Palace game, a lesser goal difference, etc.
Clearly you are not understanding the point at all. Yes, some championships are won on a single incident, especially if that incident is during a match vs their closest rival, even without the rub of the green throughout the season (compared to their rivals).
Team X & Y both accrue (for arguments sake) 80 points over 37 games, both have had similar luck and injuries throughout the season, the 38th was the game against each other exampled above. That game would clearly have decided the title, no matter how unfair the result.
Now let's look at fact not fiction, 10 out of 25 PLs (I use the PL, and not pre-Sky, because it's easily researched) have been won by 2 points or less, 7 by 1 point or less and in City's case a couple of seasons ago, they tied with United and on won it in goal difference, Aguero's injury time goal, with the last kick off the game in the last match of the season, winning it for City.
If you still want to argue the point after everything that's been laid before you, and stick blindly to thinking luck evens out over a season, then you're on your own.
Last edited:
I'm not saying we did and I'm not saying we didn't, you'd have to analyse both our and City's matches, critical injuries etc. to say which team fortune favoured. That however wasn't and isn't my point. Which should be be pretty obvious by now.
I understand the point perfectly because, despite your attempts to dress it up, it is a very simplistic view.
Your second line "some championships are won on a single incident" says it all. They are not. They can be decided on a single incident, but they are won over an entire season.
Try and be less patronising though eh, it's only football and opinions.
Luck will always be a major factor in the game, thankfully, and most teams winning big trophies need it to go all the way, I don't think many posters would argue otherwise. Even if you are Barcelona, you'll need it to swing it your way against Real and so on.
Having said that where Leicester are today and Spurs for that matter is not down to 'luck' - that's at least not how I see it. They may have been lucky in games and with certain decisions but you don't sit in the front seat of the PL in February purely on luck but you could perhaps argue that the team winning it in the end may have rode their luck a bit more than the team missing out. But it's not mainly down to luck that they are not sitting where we are and vice versa.
All this talk about luck, fluke etc. is quite frankly a lack of respect towards the Foxes achievement so far isn't it? And even more so when you look at how convincing they have looked most season.
@Judge Jules
The reason why I believe Leicester's run of form and aim at the crown is very good for the league in general mate, is down to the obvious fact that they underline that it's not all about money. We have talked a lot over the years how money has ruined the game and maybe, just maybe, this could somehow indicate that money has become less important - if you have them. And by that I mean, can you hold on to your players (which is obv also a very costly expense these days) then the gain from buying like mad men becomes less obvious compared to those 'building' teams from within, keeping squads intact.
It's been said over and over again but the combined cost of their team could only buy them one of Raheem or Sterling. It's crazy. Their team gel, they have a plan, they have got a lot of the right players in the right positions and a manager that make them perform well. They have managed to get a lot of their key players hitting form at the right time and stay clear of too many injuries. But they haven't spend big on any one player. It's not their large wallet that has taken them there.
This will inevitably mean that, at least on paper, that the next years PL seems bang open. It will give teams with lesser budgets than City, United and Chelsea a large boost of morale, knowing that it's possible to compete. That the league CAN be won on the training-ground, through clever tactics and the right, but not expensive, players. Personally I am not even sure Leicester will disappear over night either, can they keep most of their core and add a few more - maybe unheard of - players (like Amartey, who's going to be great for them) then why not?
PS Had the likes of Coutinho and Sturridge stayed fit, I am personally convinced we'd at a push only be sitting a few places higher in the table - no more. Too many things and too many players are not right at the moment, they wouldn't have changed that not even in a perfect, injury-free world. I don't believe that for a second.
Having said that where Leicester are today and Spurs for that matter is not down to 'luck' - that's at least not how I see it. They may have been lucky in games and with certain decisions but you don't sit in the front seat of the PL in February purely on luck but you could perhaps argue that the team winning it in the end may have rode their luck a bit more than the team missing out. But it's not mainly down to luck that they are not sitting where we are and vice versa.
All this talk about luck, fluke etc. is quite frankly a lack of respect towards the Foxes achievement so far isn't it? And even more so when you look at how convincing they have looked most season.
@Judge Jules
The reason why I believe Leicester's run of form and aim at the crown is very good for the league in general mate, is down to the obvious fact that they underline that it's not all about money. We have talked a lot over the years how money has ruined the game and maybe, just maybe, this could somehow indicate that money has become less important - if you have them. And by that I mean, can you hold on to your players (which is obv also a very costly expense these days) then the gain from buying like mad men becomes less obvious compared to those 'building' teams from within, keeping squads intact.
It's been said over and over again but the combined cost of their team could only buy them one of Raheem or Sterling. It's crazy. Their team gel, they have a plan, they have got a lot of the right players in the right positions and a manager that make them perform well. They have managed to get a lot of their key players hitting form at the right time and stay clear of too many injuries. But they haven't spend big on any one player. It's not their large wallet that has taken them there.
This will inevitably mean that, at least on paper, that the next years PL seems bang open. It will give teams with lesser budgets than City, United and Chelsea a large boost of morale, knowing that it's possible to compete. That the league CAN be won on the training-ground, through clever tactics and the right, but not expensive, players. Personally I am not even sure Leicester will disappear over night either, can they keep most of their core and add a few more - maybe unheard of - players (like Amartey, who's going to be great for them) then why not?
PS Had the likes of Coutinho and Sturridge stayed fit, I am personally convinced we'd at a push only be sitting a few places higher in the table - no more. Too many things and too many players are not right at the moment, they wouldn't have changed that not even in a perfect, injury-free world. I don't believe that for a second.
- Status
Similar threads
