Not by meOriginally Posted by Monty92
Not by me
Fine, but I didn't particularly feel that Spurs were ever in the race that season either. They always seemed to have too much to do. The same last season, in fact. They were ALWAYS major outsiders.Not by me
And I'm pretty sure you'd say the same about us if we'd have had the same end of season, yet because it's spurs you claim they "meaningfully challenged".
The only outlier is Liverpool, who did meaningfully challenge in their Suarez season.
I would tend to agree. In both seasons they left it too late and had too much to do in the last third of the season. In neither season were they considered anything other than an outside possibility.
However....if they put in a slightly more meaningful challenge in the next two years then they would fit your criteria. That was my point.
And an outside chance of Spurs winning the league is still far too much to bear.
No, your point was that they've challenged twice in recent years while we haven't, but are now shifting the goalposts having had the flaws in your argument exposed.
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.
See above.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote