GWT: 2017-18 Premier League Round 7

[phisherman]

No one ever said Liverpool were the best but Arsenal are not making top 4. Watch the two teams play and it's night and day. Results will come. I'm not worried though it is frustrating to go through the process at the end of the season it'll all shake out.

You also said Arsenal would be competing with Everton................

 

[bluesfan94]

No one ever said Liverpool were the best but Arsenal are not making top 4. Watch the two teams play and it's night and day. Results will come. I'm not worried though it is frustrating to go through the process at the end of the season it'll all shake out.

I guess that's true. Night and day. Arsenal gets results, Liverpool doesn't.

 

[YNWA14]

I guess that's true. Night and day. Arsenal gets results, Liverpool doesn't.

Oh. True enough; they had a fantastic result against Liverpool for example.

 

[YNWA14]

You also said Arsenal would be competing with Everton................

Yeah Everton look much worse than I expected them to. There are a few other teams that look pretty strong though so we'll see how the standings shake out.

 

[bluesfan94]

Oh. True enough; they had a fantastic result against Liverpool for example.

Which Liverpool decided to one up against City. Lemme glance at the table for a second and see what it has to say about results

 

[YNWA14]

Except I said that Liverpool weren't getting the results yet. Not really sure what you're trying to prove. If you think Arsenal are going somewhere (I don't think they are) because they've beaten a few teams in the bottom half of the table while not looking great tbh I'm happy for you.

 

[bluesfan94]

If you can't understand people finding humor in Liverpool fans declaring Arsenal dead and then being behind them in the table a month later, then we're not gonna get anywhere.

 

[YNWA14]

Except you're taking a 7 game sample when Arsenal has wins against 3 of the 4 worst teams in the league and West Brom (far from being convincing in a couple of those games) while also having lost to Stoke. Liverpool have had a tougher schedule, have been screwed out of points by poor officiating and have been incredibly unlucky...and they're still only 1 point behind.

If you want to take that small sample and ignore context that's fine too. Like I said it'll all work itself out by the end of the season.

 

[Cassano]

Don't really think strength of schedule matters tbh. Liverpool will feast on the top teams and drop points to the bottom half like clockwork. Arsenal is of course, the opposite.

 

[bluesfan94]

Except you're taking a 7 game sample when Arsenal has wins against 3 of the 4 worst teams in the league and West Brom (far from being convincing in a couple of those games) while also having lost to Stoke. Liverpool have had a tougher schedule, have been screwed out of points by poor officiating and have been incredibly unlucky...and they're still only 1 point behind.

If you want to take that small sample and ignore context that's fine too. Like I said it'll all work itself out by the end of the season.

Yeah, sorry arsenal wasn't playing the heavyweights of the league like Newcastle. Good point.

 

[les Habs]

True. The problem is that Kane plays against all these bad teams (apparently).

The problem is a lack of context and failure to comprehend what one is reading.

 

[Havre]

Don't really think strength of schedule matters tbh. Liverpool will feast on the top teams and drop points to the bottom half like clockwork. Arsenal is of course, the opposite.

It is true that Liverpool did very well against the top teams last season, but this is exaggerating it.

Sample size is obviously ridiculously small with one season so depending on where you draw the line you will get slightly different results.

Liverpool vs. top 6 last season = 2 points avg. per game
Liverpool vs. the rest = 2 points avg. per game

A very solid record against the top 6, but hardly like one is "feasting" and the other "dropping like clockwork".

If you include top 7 after winning twice against Everton top 7 will look better than the rest. If you do top 9 the results would be opposite.

You could argue that last year it didn't matter what team Liverpool played.

Is that what to be expected in the future as well? My guess is that last season was an anomaly. They did slightly better against the top teams than what they on average will and the opposite against the rest.

 

[Howie Hodge]

Wondering if Craig Shakespeare will be Managing Leicester much longer if they don't pick up their play. Now their schedule has not been the easiest, but having 5 points, and being out of the relegation zone only on goal difference is not what the Club had in mind going into this season.....

 

[Havre]

Wondering if Craig Shakespeare will be Managing Leicester much longer if they don't pick up their play. Now their schedule has not been the easiest, but having 5 points, and being out of the relegation zone only on goal difference is not what the Club had in mind going into this season.....

Would be crazy to sack him.

I remember in 01/02 when Utd went from October to mid December with one win one draw and five losses.

Barthez, Gary Neville, Blanc, Brown, Silvestre, Beckham, Veron, Keane, Fortune, Scholes, van Nistelrooy.

Now I know Ferguson's "retirement plan" probably influenced that team quite a bit, but when those players could go on such a run Leicester certainly can/could without it being much of a crisis - or necessarily much wrong with the team.

Seems like it is almost a toin coss behind top 6 who ends up 7th and who ends up in a relegation battle.

 

[Savant]

It is true that Liverpool did very well against the top teams last season, but this is exaggerating it.

Sample size is obviously ridiculously small with one season so depending on where you draw the line you will get slightly different results.

Liverpool vs. top 6 last season = 2 points avg. per game
Liverpool vs. the rest = 2 points avg. per game

A very solid record against the top 6, but hardly like one is "feasting" and the other "dropping like clockwork".

If you include top 7 after winning twice against Everton top 7 will look better than the rest. If you do top 9 the results would be opposite.

You could argue that last year it didn't matter what team Liverpool played.

Is that what to be expected in the future as well? My guess is that last season was an anomaly. They did slightly better against the top teams than what they on average will and the opposite against the rest.

Perhaps. But it’s not sustainable to be that successful against the top 7.

Being able to defeat the bottom teams is much more replicable

 

[Havre]

Perhaps? Not sure if I follow. We agree.

 

[East Coast Bias]

With the International break coming, I got the following Power Rankings 7 games in. Put points in parenthesis b/c I didn't rank exactly to table

1) City (19)
2) United (19)
3) Chelsea (13)
4) Spurs (14)
5) Liverpool (12)
6) Arsenal (13)

 

[Havre]

With Morata out and the somewhat questionable general depth at Chelsea I could see them dropping from 3rd. Don’t think they have been especially impressive so far in general. That could change when Hazard gets going of course.

 

[bleedblue1223]

With Morata out and the somewhat questionable general depth at Chelsea I could see them dropping from 3rd. Don’t think they have been especially impressive so far in general. That could change when Hazard gets going of course.

Hazard will change this team, anything that gets Willian out of the lineup. Granted, if we have to put Bats in for any significant length of time, then we are right back to where we were. The depth is just so bad, except at CB.

 

[Havre]

Hazard will change this team, anything that gets Willian out of the lineup. Granted, if we have to put Bats in for any significant length of time, then we are right back to where we were. The depth is just so bad, except at CB.

Morata out with a grade 2 tear. So he will be out for some games at least.

Also bit of a question mark how quickly Hazard can get back. Looked completely lost against City. Not sure if it was only match fitness or if we will see more of the 15/16 Hazard again. If it takes 5 or even 10 games for him to be his old self then Chelsea might have lost a lot of points already - especially if Morata is out as well.

 

[Stray Wasp]

Would be crazy to sack him.

I remember in 01/02 when Utd went from October to mid December with one win one draw and five losses.

Barthez, Gary Neville, Blanc, Brown, Silvestre, Beckham, Veron, Keane, Fortune, Scholes, van Nistelrooy.

Now I know Ferguson's "retirement plan" probably influenced that team quite a bit, but when those players could go on such a run Leicester certainly can/could without it being much of a crisis - or necessarily much wrong with the team.

Seems like it is almost a toin coss behind top 6 who ends up 7th and who ends up in a relegation battle.

It's a brave man who uses Alex Ferguson at Manchester United 2001/2 as a measure for projecting the future of Craig Shakespeare with Leicester City in 2017/18.

I dearly hope I don't have to explain to anyone in these parts why I write that.

Though I'd agree it's too early to fire Shakespeare, I suspect before the season ends his immense good fortune in landing the job in the first place will have turned into unemployment. Even if the results improve, in a stardust-addicted league his lack of cachet is a distinct disadvantage.

I'd not be surprised if Shakespeare ended up suffering a similar trajectory to Glenn Roeder at Newcastle- an excellent short-term replacement for an unpopular man running an evolving team, but unequal to the long-term demands of furthering that evolution.

Simplistic as it is, I can't shake the obvious doubt- if Shakespeare is so talented, how come he's spent so much of his career as lieutenant to Nigel 'The man best qualified for the role of leading Newcastle United to promotion in the 2016/17 Championship' Pearson?

While English football has a habit for being collectively wrong about things, in this day and age the dearth of native coaches capable of so much as tying their own shoelaces correctly means that if there's the merest whiff of someone having real ability, opportunity tends to knock well before they hit fifty.

 

[Stray Wasp]

And that brought me to three thousand posts here.

Raises bat to all four corners of the ground, shakes hands with hordes of ecstatic pitch invaders, grateful colleagues, admiring opponents and sober umpires alike, prepares to resume his innings with impeccable sang-froid.

 

[Havre]

What are you talking about? I´m projecting anything? I´m saying a 7 game spell doesn´t mean much. As for Shakespeare I don´t really have much of a view on him yet. Leicester should know what they get though.

Allegri coached for quite a few years before showing much. Conte also had a bit of a mixed bag resume for some years.

Not being desperate to get the head job doesn´t necessarily mean much. For all I know there are personal reasons for it (kids growing up or whatever). And it doesn´t mean he couldn´t be a very good manager when given the chance. The best coach in Norway at the moment "retired" some years ago and was selling cars before he went back to management.

 

[Stray Wasp]

Would be crazy to sack him.

I remember in 01/02 when Utd went from October to mid December with one win one draw and five losses.

Barthez, Gary Neville, Blanc, Brown, Silvestre, Beckham, Veron, Keane, Fortune, Scholes, van Nistelrooy.

Now I know Ferguson's "retirement plan" probably influenced that team quite a bit, but when those players could go on such a run Leicester certainly can/could without it being much of a crisis - or necessarily much wrong with the team.

I think that bolded part amounts to projecting. Speculatively projecting, no doubt, but projecting nevertheless.

 

[Stray Wasp]

Allegri coached for quite a few years before showing much. Conte also had a bit of a mixed bag resume for some years.

Not being desperate to get the head job doesn´t necessarily mean much. For all I know there are personal reasons for it (kids growing up or whatever). And it doesn´t mean he couldn´t be a very good manager when given the chance. The best coach in Norway at the moment "retired" some years ago and was selling cars before he went back to management.

Allegri was manager of Milan by age 43, having been first allowed to run his own team age 36. In between he promoted Sassuolo to Serie B for the first time in their history, and lead Cagliari to their best finish in fifteen years. (He'd lost his first five games in charge with Cagliari, yet the notoriously impatient Cellini stuck with him. Even a stopped clock, etc.).

Conte undertook the transition from assistant to head coach age thirty-seven. Middling as his CV was prior to Juve, he'd earned promotions to Serie A with two different clubs. Juve put him in charge aged 42.

I'd suggest each man illustrates my point that it's unlikely a real talent won't receive the chance to run his own team until he's past fifty, whether or not that talent immediately pays dividends.

As for possible mitigating factors in Shakespeare's delayed ascent, Leicester is in the East Midlands of a small country- a lot of clubs would be within driveable distance for a man who didn't care to uproot his family from their home. (By the bye, Shakespeare followed his guiding star Pearson to Hull- a conspicuously less accessible city).

And while you may not think it means much if someone isn't desperate to win a head coaching job, I'm bound to remark that the people who become football coaches are the real obsessives- either thwarted would-be players, or ex-pros who can't live without the game once they're obliged to call time on their playing careers. As such, the notion that Shakespeare acquired a previously non-existent desire for a top job when he was past the age of fifty doesn't wash with me.