StrumSolo > 17/05/2016, 15:03
(17/05/2016, 14:36)gooner666 Wrote: can I just ask,if, I said if England and Wales get to the semi final of the Euros and play each other and England knock them out,have Wales had a better tournament :-/??
gooner666 > 17/05/2016, 15:08
(17/05/2016, 15:03)ScottyRampant Wrote:kool reply,ok,,lets get out of this thread we,ve spent to much time in here anyway,fucking no good London delinquents :P(17/05/2016, 14:36)gooner666 Wrote: can I just ask,if, I said if England and Wales get to the semi final of the Euros and play each other and England knock them out,have Wales had a better tournament :-/??
All depends on what we do in the final. If we win the thing (not come second, this is crucial) then we've had the better tournament.
Even if we just come up short against one of the big boys, we've still done better.
But, if we bottle it against a side that were massive outsiders at the start of the tournament, the Republic of Ireland for example, then Wales (also unfancied at the start) have done better.
Analogy cast list:
England = Arsenal
'The Big Boys' (Spain, Germany or France) = Chelsea, City, United
Wales = Tottenham
Republic of Ireland = Leicester
Rambo123 > 17/05/2016, 21:01
gooner666 > 17/05/2016, 21:25
(17/05/2016, 21:01)Rambo123 Wrote: It was a bad example to use Gooner - tournament football is completely different.
But you are ignoring the fact that things like fan expectations, money spent, and overall size of the club do matter when it comes to comparing who has had a good season and who has not.
Put it this way, if next season Burnley finish 20th and Arsenal finish 19th. Both relegated but Arsenal with more points......Who has had the worse season?
Burnley? Who have just come up from the Championship, have never really made an impact on the premier league and have a fraction of the financial might of the big clubs.
Or Arsenal, with all their money, experience, skillful players and record of (relative) success in the premier league?
I think the answer is pretty obvious. It is a far more extreme example of course but worth thinking about when comparing the spurs/arsenal season.
Rambo123 > 17/05/2016, 21:37
gooner666 > 17/05/2016, 21:40
(17/05/2016, 21:37)Rambo123 Wrote: Answer the question though - in the scenario above, who had the worse season? Burnley Or Arsenal (or any big club in that scenario).BURNLEY
I'm definitely not ignoring any facts, (Arsenal being better isn't a fact by the way, more subjective) - Spurs finished 3rd, behind Arsenal. Arsenal definitely deserved second place, they kept plugging away and gaining points.
Just because Spurs played better throughout the season doesn't mean I think that they deserve second place at all. They bottled it at the end and couldn't mentally cope when they failed to catch Leicester.
I really like Arsenal as a club and a team. Far better than Spurs. But I still think this season they were a let-down.
Expectations always apply to Arsenal. Just like they apply to any club who has experienced success and wants to continue experiencing it. Every big team was a let-down this season, not just them.
But anyway - abit off topic.
StrumSolo > 18/05/2016, 17:17