• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The GG Excuse Summary...

Spursalot said:
I disagree with 1).


It assumes that the same Norwich turn up every week and play consistently the same in every game. They don't.


The rest are ok, nothing too ground breaking though.
Click to expand...

Agree with you.

Most teams in the league are inconsistent.

It just hurts so much more when we fail to win against a smaller team that it sticks with us for longer compared to the joy of one of our rivals failing to do the same.

We're the 4th best team in the league in games against bottom half teams. As I say that it's worth noting that we do score significantly less than other top teams against the bottom half so there's some truth in us not crushing them results wise as often as other top teams.
 
braineclipse said:
Agree with you.

Most teams in the league are inconsistent.

It just hurts so much more when we fail to win against a smaller team that it sticks with us for longer compared to the joy of one of our rivals failing to do the same.

We're the 4th best team in the league in games against bottom half teams. As I say that it's worth noting that we do score significantly less than other top teams against the bottom half so there's some truth in us not crushing them results wise as often as other top teams.
Click to expand...

But they don't suddenly develop better players. Theycan only play to their maximum level. Ifwe don't have enough to beat that then we're are not a top team. The excuse they were brick the previous week is probably because they were exposed by a better side, not because they have suddnely morphed into Brazil 1970.
 
Armchair Expert said:
But they don't suddenly develop better players. Theycan only play to their maximum level. Ifwe don't have enough to beat that then we're are not a top team. The excuse they were brick the previous week is probably because they were exposed by a better side, not because they have suddnely morphed into Brazil 1970.
Click to expand...

Once again, we do have enough to beat them as often as our main competitors. That's why we're the 4th best team in the league against bottom half teams! If the standard of being a top team is how many points you get against the smaller teams (here bottom half teams) then we are demonstrably one of the top teams going by the results.

The impression that we draw or lose against the smaller teams significantly more often than our rivals is just a wrong impression.

I'm convinced that there's quite a bit of luck and coincidence going on. In the Fulham-Chelsea game Fulham had a massive chance that they wasted early on, Chelsea then scored a screamer from nothing having created very little throughout. It ended 0-3, but could easily have gone differently. Just like our game against Fulham could have gone differently. People then complain, completely ignoring the fact that Fulham drew against Chelsea at the bridge earlier this season because it doesn't stick in our minds that Chelsea drew against Fulham in November (I had to check it), but it does stick in our minds when we drop points because it hurts that much more.
 
braineclipse said:
Once again, we do have enough to beat them as often as our main competitors. That's why we're the 4th best team in the league against bottom half teams! If the standard of being a top team is how many points you get against the smaller teams (here bottom half teams) then we are demonstrably one of the top teams going by the results.

The impression that we draw or lose against the smaller teams significantly more often than our rivals is just a wrong impression.

I'm convinced that there's quite a bit of luck and coincidence going on. In the Fulham-Chelsea game Fulham had a massive chance that they wasted early on, Chelsea then scored a screamer from nothing having created very little throughout. It ended 0-3, but could easily have gone differently. Just like our game against Fulham could have gone differently. People then complain, completely ignoring the fact that Fulham drew against Chelsea at the bridge earlier this season because it doesn't stick in our minds that Chelsea drew against Fulham in November (I had to check it), but it does stick in our minds when we drop points because it hurts that much more.
Click to expand...

Being a top team is based on where you finish in the league, not about which individual clubs you beat.

The point here is, the same Fulham team that Chelsea put away was the same one that beat us at the lane. There can be no excuses, its a simple fact. The where to and why fors and hard luck stories are all nonsense.

Those are the excuses you hear people come up with when they simply aren't quite good enough. David Luiz scored a thirty yarder, we didn't. Chelsea took 4 points of Fulham this year, we took three. Nothing to do with luck, they just performed better against Fulham than we did this season.

Fulham beating us at the lane had nothing to do with them suddenly playing better, raising their game, their players abilities mysteriously improving for an afternoon, we weren't good enough to beat them. A few days later Chelsea were. Its as simple as that.
 
Armchair Expert said:
But they don't suddenly develop better players. Theycan only play to their maximum level. Ifwe don't have enough to beat that then we're are not a top team. The excuse they were brick the previous week is probably because they were exposed by a better side, not because they have suddnely morphed into Brazil 1970.
Click to expand...


The overriding assumption there is that better players win games.


Football doesn't always work like that.
 
Superted said:
Exactly. If arsenals fixtures are easier from here on, it means we've had it easier up until now. We still play both play all the other teams twice.
Click to expand...


Which is exactly why you can use the remaining fixtures to see how you are doing so far, and how likely you are to get to the position you want to be in.
 
Armchair Expert said:
Being a top team is based on where you finish in the league, not about which individual clubs you beat.

The point here is, the same Fulham team that Chelsea put away was the same one that beat us at the lane. There can be no excuses, its a simple fact. The where to and why fors and hard luck stories are all nonsense.

Those are the excuses you hear people come up with when they simply aren't quite good enough. David Luiz scored a thirty yarder, we didn't. Chelsea took 4 points of Fulham this year, we took three. Nothing to do with luck, they just performed better against Fulham than we did this season.

Fulham beating us at the lane had nothing to do with them suddenly playing better, raising their game, their players abilities mysteriously improving for an afternoon, we weren't good enough to beat them. A few days later Chelsea were. Its as simple as that.
Click to expand...


The problem i have with this is that you are writing off the other team entirely. There are two teams that play each match, not just one.

You are saying that we lost because of us, and that Chelsea won because of them. That insinuates that Fulham had zero say in either result.
 
Armchair Expert said:
Being a top team is based on where you finish in the league, not about which individual clubs you beat.

The point here is, the same Fulham team that Chelsea put away was the same one that beat us at the lane. There can be no excuses, its a simple fact. The where to and why fors and hard luck stories are all nonsense.

Those are the excuses you hear people come up with when they simply aren't quite good enough. David Luiz scored a thirty yarder, we didn't. Chelsea took 4 points of Fulham this year, we took three. Nothing to do with luck, they just performed better against Fulham than we did this season.

Fulham beating us at the lane had nothing to do with them suddenly playing better, raising their game, their players abilities mysteriously improving for an afternoon, we weren't good enough to beat them. A few days later Chelsea were. Its as simple as that.
Click to expand...

So you don't think luck and coincidences influences the outcome of football matches?

Do you think all attempts at explaining a negative result counts as an excuse?
 
Spursalot said:
The problem i have with this is that you are writing off the other team entirely. There are two teams that play each match, not just one.

You are saying that we lost because of us, and that Chelsea won because of them. That insinuates that Fulham had zero say in either result.
Click to expand...

But i'm looking at it from a Spurs' perspective: thus Chelsea happen to in this instance direct rivals and it is thus fair to compare the relative results of each team, whilst Fulham, in this particular instance are irrelevant.

To look at it from a Fulham point of view you need to establish what their goals are and who are their direct rivals.

Thats why debate on here doesnt revolve around teams like Fulham and Southampton, but Chelsea and Arsenal.

And i havent completely written off Fulham, ive simply stated that they have the same bunch of players, with the same same abilities availsble to them for each fixture they compete in.
 
braineclipse said:
So you don't think luck and coincidences influences the outcome of football matches?

Do you think all attempts at explaining a negative result counts as an excuse?
Click to expand...

To the first point, no. I think there is a reason why Man Utd win the league every year and Barca do well in Europe: they are the best teams. The better the team the more football matches you win.

The second point: largely, yes. Unless that debate revolves around OUR team selection, tactics, signings or personel. When we look to outside factors i listed in my first post then yes, i think they are all just excuses.
 
We lost at home to Fulham, Arsenal and Chelsea drew. We won away to Fulham, as did Chelsea. Today we'll find out what Arsenal do.
 
Armchair Expert said:
But i'm looking at it from a Spurs' perspective: thus Chelsea happen to in this instance direct rivals and it is thus fair to compare the relative results of each team, whilst Fulham, in this particular instance are irrelevant.

To look at it from a Fulham point of view you need to establish what their goals are and who are their direct rivals.

Thats why debate on here doesnt revolve around teams like Fulham and Southampton, but Chelsea and Arsenal.

And i havent completely written off Fulham, ive simply stated that they have the same bunch of players, with the same same abilities availsble to them for each fixture they compete in.
Click to expand...


That has nothing to do with it. What you've stated is that they put in a consistent performance of the same ability for each and every match.

Which they clearly do not. As no football team does.
 
Spursalot said:
That has nothing to do with it. What you've stated is that they put in a consistent performance of the same ability for each and every match.

Which they clearly do not. As no football team does.
Click to expand...

That isn't what i said. I said that there exists a glass ceiling for performances that every team is capable of. Our maximum performance levels are capable of exceeding theirs.

EDIT: so when Norwich (for example) get crushed by Arsenal, then beat us its just excuses to say that they played unbelievably well. It just means Arsenal played somewhere near their capabilities, whilst we didn't: Norwich aren't capable of exceeding a certain level of performance/quality.

Hence why it is a poor excuse.
 
Last edited:
Armchair Expert said:
To the first point, no. I think there is a reason why Man Utd win the league every year and Barca do well in Europe: they are the best teams. The better the team the more football matches you win.

The second point: largely, yes. Unless that debate revolves around OUR team selection, tactics, signings or personel. When we look to outside factors i listed in my first post then yes, i think they are all just excuses.
Click to expand...

Well, Man Utd don't win the league every year. ;)

My question wasn't about a full season, but about individual games (and to some extent a small sample of games). "Football matches", not seasons. Is your answer the same for individual games?

Although, if the answer is "yes" there is of course no reason to think that luck and coincidence won't also affect league positions at the end of a season to some extent. The better the team the more football matches you win is of course true, but that doesn't mean that there's no luck involved in individual matches or in the outcome at the end of the season.

I suppose equating all (outside) explanations with excuses is fine if that's what you want, I don't see it that way though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back