Comments on: Vote: Should there be a playoff for the Prem title?

By: Greg

Greg — Sat, 10 May 2008 17:09:38 +0000

No, that’s not my rationale at all. City beating United twice is more fluke than anything else. If it weren’t, they’d be closer in the standings. Utilizing head to head records between teams who over the length of the season have proven to be pretty much equal is therefore a good means of measure. Or would you rather let relegation bound/bottom feeder teams who a club scores 5 goals against decide the league?

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 10 May 2008 14:37:07 +0000

Greg, if you use that rational City is a better team than United because they beat them twice. Goal differential is fine.

By: areallaticfromthesouth

areallaticfromthesouth — Sat, 10 May 2008 13:38:27 +0000

Let the arguments start should Chelsea and Man Utd both win on Sunday. The English title has always been decided on goal difference (if needed) – why should it change?

We are still getting use to the new offside rule which was introduced at the start of the this season.. Lets wait and see what happens.

By: Greg

Greg — Sat, 10 May 2008 12:29:42 +0000

Goal differential as the primary tie breaker is horseshit. The teams all play two matches against each other, home and away, why not do what other intelligent leagues have done and use head to head record as the first tie breaker? It makes perfect sense: “Gee these two guys are tied and I’m trying to decide who’s better? I wonder how we generally determine the better team… Don’t they usually play against each other instead of making us guess? Ooohhh yeeahhh.” If goal differential was a proper indicator of ability, then ManUre and Chels shouldn’t play each other in Moscow, they should play against a local Moscow pub team and whomever scores more and concedes less must be the better team. Its the same dumb argument that if team A beats team B and team B beats team C then team A must be better than team C. BS. Head to head record ftw!!!

By: Drabik

Drabik — Sat, 10 May 2008 09:44:44 +0000

I dont think that a play-off would be right. The goal difference way rewards the best attacking team and best defensive team. With Manchester United scoring the most and conceding the least. And therefore deserve to be top (as it stands today).

Also, if a play-off decides who wins a league, what about all of the other positions in the league where goal difference separates two teams? I’m sure every team will know that being just one place up in the league rewards them with a great amount of cash. And that’s without even thinking about qualifying for Europe and avoiding relegation (which could happen tomorrow depending on results).

My idea is that you cannot have a playoff to decide one position in the league, without doing it for the rest of the positions. Finally, what if Arsenal hadn’t had their little slump in form and were also equal on points, a three game mini-league would not be favourable to either Manchester United or Chelsea, as they will want to focus on training for the Champions League final.

Woah, sorry about the length of the post. Also, I’m a Manchester United fan, but I do not think my view is biased, as I think that attacking football should be rewarded.

By: ish

ish — Sat, 10 May 2008 08:15:57 +0000

the only reason this is coming up is because chelsea are equal points. Sure it would be thrilling. Imagine if man u and chelsea need to play 2 games that decide whether they win anything.
But the counter is simple. Chelsea had to play the same teams man u did, why didnt they score with similar score lines? Sure we had crap loads of injuries and away players and only now are we coming back into form but our team is vast and full of talent.
Also using goal difference rewards the attacking teams more. Chelsea got alot of 1-0 wins that were nearly luck mixed with great defense but they still had shitty attacking. If man u loses or draws to wigan then chelsea deserve to be on top but if they both win i think its only fair that the more attacking team gets the trophy.