Even so I think it was premature and overconfident based on what I just said in my last post. There's plenty of excuse not to win at this point with the first being Manchester City.
GWT: PL Matchweek 21
- Thread starter Savant
- Start date
Even so I think it was premature and overconfident based on what I just said in my last post. There's plenty of excuse not to win at this point with the first being Manchester City.
When you're unbeaten and 7 points over City (nobody seriously think Spurs are in it), they have every reason to think losing would be some kind of choke job.
Liverpool almost doesn't drop points. Like at all. If they perform as well down the stretch, City can't catch them with 7 points back.
That was the reasonning and I understand it.
LITN made a much more terrible statement when he said Liverpool would have no trouble getting through in a CL group with PSG and Napoli
Liverpool almost doesn't drop points. Like at all. If they perform as well down the stretch, City can't catch them with 7 points back.
That was the reasonning and I understand it.
LITN made a much more terrible statement when he said Liverpool would have no trouble getting through in a CL group with PSG and Napoli
I disagree. If you're playing that well and still only 7 points up on a City side without de Bruyne and without Mendy with a fixture against them on the horizon then there's no reason to think it's choke job if they lose considering it was 12/26. Were City a different side or non-existent, then yeah I agree with you because I too don't think Spurs are in it. However City is there and they're real as yesterday demonstrated and losing the title to them despite a 7 point lead at Christmas isn't a choke job. They could have had a 10 point lead and were they to fail to win the title I still wouldn't call it a choke job.
Still not a choke job if you ask me when it's City weren't talking about here and it's only the midway point of the season. Leagues are won with 5 losses so losing it with 3 losses is by no means a choke job in my book regardless of being undefeated at Christmas. To each their own I guess.
Meh losing 3 games and at least drawing 1 in 19 games after 16-0-3 in the first 19...
And let's be honest, City would drop points somewhere as well. So at LEAST 4 losses.
Yeah I'd call that a choke job.
Anyway, it's all moot, 4 points isn't much and every game will be a cup final.
And let's be honest, City would drop points somewhere as well. So at LEAST 4 losses.
Yeah I'd call that a choke job.
Anyway, it's all moot, 4 points isn't much and every game will be a cup final.
Burner Account
Registered User
- Feb 14, 2008
- 37,418
- 1,744
We see a lot of history about New Year leaders winning the league an overwhelming percentage of the time, and teams with seven point leads at the New Year not failing to win the league since 1888. Basically there's a lot of precedent suggesting that if Liverpool does not win the league given the lead it had at the New Year, it will be a historic slip.
Chimaera
same ol' Caps
I think Spurs are in it. They're too close, with too much to play to really think they're not. Liverpool could fade, they still have City to play. I don't think they're the favorites, but they're not completely out of it. Injuries, crapping out of CL or the Cups... who knows.
I don't think it's anyone's race, but Liverpool's schedule where they have most of their top 6 at home (only United away), and only Spurs and Chelsea to come at home, it should give them some chance. Being out of the League Cup could also help. I think City is really going to go for it in the CL. Having a lead right now, I think anyone would have been happy to take that as a Liverpool supporter.
But I do think City are still the favorites, just with having done it before, and probably a deeper roster.
I don't think it's anyone's race, but Liverpool's schedule where they have most of their top 6 at home (only United away), and only Spurs and Chelsea to come at home, it should give them some chance. Being out of the League Cup could also help. I think City is really going to go for it in the CL. Having a lead right now, I think anyone would have been happy to take that as a Liverpool supporter.
But I do think City are still the favorites, just with having done it before, and probably a deeper roster.
- Oct 3, 2013
- 36,975
- 10,679
I'm okay with saying Tottenham is in it, but they have an even smaller margin for error than the two teams ahead of them. It's a tough jump for them to make but don't let me tell them not to believe.
East Coast Bias
Registered User
Burner Account
Registered User
- Feb 14, 2008
- 37,418
- 1,744
In the last 125 Premier League games , Man City has a grand total of 6 more points than Tottenham. In the last 5 years , ManCity has a net transfer expenditure of 505,000,000£....In the last 5 years Tottenham has a net transfer expenditure of 18,500,000£ ... 26 times less than City
In the last 5 years Tottenham has won 0 trophies.
Hadoop
Registered User
Both bookies and statisticians have Liverpool as favourites despite the loss yesterday. That said tempering expectations is not bad idea given Liverpool have had their fair share of heartbreak in recent campaigns.
Only cause they didn't spend half a billion £ on transfers , that's before you tackle wages . Almost all Premier League titles were bought.... at a massive price . Man City , Chelsea and Man U should be proud of their purchase
Duchene2MacKinnon
In the hands of Genius
- Aug 8, 2006
- 45,300
- 9,465
You can't win without spending. I hate it but you take the good with the bad. I can't wait till the market resets but you have mid table EPL clubs flushed with cash...
" without Spending BIG "which means only a trio can buy the title , with the odd one off winning one every decade or so .
When the premier League started , they pretty well stole the football Leagues 50% TV money . By 94 -95 Manchester United brought in 13% of all revenue generated by all 92 teams in all Leagues , 20 % of all Premier League money . The Premier League was a lesson in greed , and Man U was its best student . Took awhile for Chelsea and ManCity to catch them financially but since they did , it was no free ride for Man U anymore. I wish the " Super League " would form and send the trio to it , along with Your Barcelonas , Madrids , Bayerns and such .
East Coast Bias
Registered User
I'm a Swansea fan , so I don't have a preference anymore since we dropped last season after 7 years .
Man U , Man City and Chelsea and their billions couldn't snatch the EPL from Leicester either . This decade's " One Off "....
It was almost a double one off.All EPL titles won by the either 1st, 2nd or 3rd highest wage paying teams for over a quarter century except Leicester's 14th highest payed wages . I'm glad I was alive to witness the basic " Miracle " by " The Foxes".
But it does all have to do with money , except for this only title you can elude too . A one off . One year , that you elude too , is the the entire foundation for your statement .. whereas my foundation is built on the rest of a quarter century .
maclean
Registered User
- Jan 4, 2014
- 8,508
- 2,608
Personally I think it's hilarious that so many people don't think Spurs are even in it, but I imagine their fans are used to it by now
Don't forget, Tottenham were one of the so called 'big five' of the 80s who pushed for the creation of a Premier League with the very aim of escalating the financial advantage the richest clubs held over the rest. They never objected to the principle of money buying success, they just failed to foresee that the monstrous baby they begat would lead to the invasion of English football by the overseas gangster capitalist class whose pumping of bloodstained / dubiously acquired funds into other clubs left North London's second most successful club struggling to catch up.
To what degree Spurs have been held back by a lack of financial clout is a moot point. After the Great Step Forward of 2015/16, they were in the position where they could afford to spend £30 million on a single player. Well, I say 'player', but given the chap they splashed out on was Moussa Sissoko, perhaps another word would be more appropriate. And the decision to sign Sissoko followed £17 million being thrown at something called Vincent Janssen.
The big problem Spurs have is their self-imposed wage structure. And 'self-imposed' needs to be put up in lights. When you analyse their financial results since 2014, it's plain they could have spent more on player salaries without undermining the club's economic stability. They simply chose not to do so. So I'd suggest they aren't plucky underdogs deserving of sympathy. They are landed aristocrats sulking that the staff have the temerity to want to earn the same as the chaps employed by the estates nearby.
Notoriously, the exception to all this fiscal prudence is the stipend made to the man who oversees it - Daniel Levy. Mind, we know Levy is a genius because he's been at Spurs since 2001 without being sacked for delivering no more than one League Cup. And perhaps he also deserves reward for having absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the recruitment of Spurs' talisman, Harry Kane.
Hilariously, a cursory study of the internet reveals some Tottenham fans donning their pom-poms and praising the increased sponsorship deals Levy has achieved for Spurs in recent times. From my perspective, such has been the positive vibe surrounding Kane, Ali, Pochettino, Champions League qualification and the new stadium that it would have been a tougher achievement for a London club to have failed to up their commercial income.
