Approximately 18 months ago I, World's End Stella, went on an extensive youtube

[Peter]

This is untrue, I'm afraid.

With 4 games to go Team A is 12 points behind the league leaders and have been for some time and they finish 12 points behind the champions. Did they challenge for the league? Absolutely not.

Team B is top of the league with 4 games to go but lose their last 4 games and finish third behind Team A on goal difference. Is being top with 4 games to go challenging for the league? Absolutely, yes.

An exaggerated version of what actually happened. Or to borrow a phrase from Monty, a 'difference of degrees only'

[World's End Stella]

An exaggerated version of what actually happened. Or to borrow a phrase from Monty, a 'difference of degrees only'

It is a theoretical example of why his theory about challenging for the title or not being correlated to where you finish in the table was inaccurate.

It wasn't related to what happened in any way.

[Peter]

What isn't true?

Did we, or did we not, finish above them? We did finish above them. You contend that they were challenging for the title. Any team finishing above them must also have been challenging for the title, but more successfully than them.

With four games left, Spurs were 5 points behind Leicester. We were ten or eleven points behind and would be mathematically out of it after the next game.

They took 2 points from their last four, while we took 8 and caught them on the last day, on goal difference.

[Monty92]

I am not shifting the goalposts. They did leave themselves too much to do but it is rather silly to say they didnt challenge. Our challenge two years ago was faltering badly from March onwards and I dont think anyone genuinely thought, going into April, that we were going to win the league or even come close. Spurs, while being an outside bet, were at least winning games and gathering momentum. At the time, everyone was talking about their title challenge. I cant recall anyone talking about ours going into the last 6 or 7 games. We ended up above them because they collapsed after their title challenge ended at Chelsea.

Last year they did challenge but left it too late. We were nowhere.

I am not really sure where you are going with all this. I am not going to patronise you by explaining the difference between challenging for the title and winning it, even though you seem confused between the two things.

Ok, so let's unpack your claims. With seven games to (early April), Spurs drew at Liverpool, effectively leaving them 7 points behind Leicester (who had a game in hand). They then drew 2 and lost 2 of their following four games, ending their title chances mathematically.

With seven games to go, we went to West Ham and drew 3-3. leaving us 9 points behind Leicester. The BBC said this "dealt a blow to our already slim chances of winning the league". We then drew 2 and lost 2 of our subsequent four games - exactly the same as Spurs.

And yet according to you, one of these teams meaningfully challenged while the other didn't.

[redgunamo]

You judge us by different standards and I'd like to know why.

It's Wenger, isn't it, and His longevity. Given that sort of time, footballistically, people naturally expect much more.

[Peter]

Ok, so let's unpack your claims. With seven games to (early April), Spurs drew at Liverpool, effectively leaving them 7 points behind Leicester. They then drew 2 and lost 2 of their subsequent four games, ending their title chances mathematically.

With seven games to go, we went to West Ham and drew 3-3. leaving us 9 points behind Leicester. The BBC said this "dealt a blow to our already slim chances of winning the league". We then drew 2 and lost 2 of our subsequent four games.

And yet according to you, one of these teams meaningfully challenged, and the other didn't.

See above.

[Peter]

Ok, so let's unpack your claims. With seven games to (early April), Spurs drew at Liverpool, effectively leaving them 7 points behind Leicester (who had a game in hand). They then drew 2 and lost 2 of their following four games, ending their title chances mathematically.

With seven games to go, we went to West Ham and drew 3-3. leaving us 9 points behind Leicester. The BBC said this "dealt a blow to our already slim chances of winning the league". We then drew 2 and lost 2 of our subsequent four games - exactly the same as Spurs.

And yet according to you, one of these teams meaningfully challenged while the other didn't.

Just for the record, you are thoroughly wrong here. Spurs won their next two games (including beating United 3-0) and closed the gap to 5 points. At that stage we were ten points behind.

Throughout this conversation, I have never used the term 'meaningfully challenged'. I have referred to Spurs' challenges over two years not being entirely convincing, and to them being very much an outside bet. As much as you would like his to not be the case, I'm afraid it is.

One can argue that their challenge two years ago was not much more convincing than ours. I think perspective is important here as their challenge was far better than anyone expected from them and ours was quite a bit weaker. Around february we looked well placed to mount a serious challenge but our form dipped considerably. Their form continued to improve giving a sense of momentum.

Obviously, this trend continued into the following season where we got progressively worse and they continued to improve.

[Monty92]

See above.

They were 5 points behind and drew at home with West Brom with five games to go. Presumably you think this is where their challenge faltered.

We were 7 points behind and drew with West Ham with 6 games to go.

The difference between your definition of challenging and not challenging at all seems incredibly small.

[Monty92]

Just for the record, you are thoroughly wrong here. Spurs won their next two games (including beating United 3-0) and closed the gap to 5 points. At that stage we were ten points behind.

Throughout this conversation, I have never used the term 'meaningfully challenged'. I have referred to Spurs' challenges over two years not being entirely convincing, and to them being very much an outside bet. As much as you would like his to not be the case, I'm afraid it is.

One can argue that their challenge two years ago was not much more convincing than ours. I think perspective is important here as their challenge was far better than anyone expected from them and ours was quite a bit weaker. Around february we looked well placed to mount a serious challenge but our form dipped considerably. Their form continued to improve giving a sense of momentum.

Obviously, this trend continued into the following season where we got progressively worse and they continued to improve.

You say our form dipped considerably while theirs improved from Feb onwards, yet between the start of Feb and the start of April they'd only amassed five more points than us, which hardly supports your assessment.

[Peter]

They were 5 points behind and drew at home with West Brom with five games to go. Presumably you think this is where their challenge faltered.

We were 7 points behind and drew with West Ham with 6 games to go.

The difference between your definition of challenging and not challenging at all seems incredibly small.

I wasnt going to do this but you have forced me to. This is a post from you on 20 April in that year:

"At this point I think I'd even have Spurs as favourites. I guess our best hope is Chelsea pulling their fingers out at the Bridge but you can easily see them winning their remaining games"

it seems you were quite convinced by them at the time, Monty. Later on in the thread you also say

"7 point gap with five games to go. I dont think we have come that close in a very long time".

You are wrong above, by the way. when they drew with West BRom there were only three games to go.

20 April, 2016.