So does the league table lie or not?

[Ash]

"The league table doesn't lie" is an old saying which is widely seen as a wise reminder that at the end of the season you are where you should be.

ACLF wrote today:

"We finished second because Tottenham imploded; we all know that. Whether you admit it is another matter."

Well, that is true, but does it imply that we didn't really finish second? No, but it might impy that we didn't deserve to finish second. Many of us would agree with that. If so, does the league table lie after all? Or maybe bend the truth a bit?

We finished second because Spurs collapsed. Fact. But why did Spurs collapse? Is it because there are 38 games in a season, and not 34, and they expended so much energy in the 34 that they had nothing left in the tank at the end? It certainly looked like that with the half a Spurs side that cost Woy Hodgson his job. If a bloke charges off to the front in a 1500m race and then collapses in the last 200, and gets overtaken, then that's down to not pacing himself for the distance.

There are too many question marks in this post but I can't be bothered to rewrite it just to try and express the point more eloquently. But my point is a question. Does the league table lie or not? If not, then maybe we shouldn't be making excuses for Spurs to remind ourselves how crap we are. And the manager is. Because if it was the other way round, we wouldn't be making excuses for ourselves.

[TheCurly]

It lied once.1998-1999.This young A is a gosh darn fact.

[Ash]

It lied once.1998-1999.This young A is a gosh darn fact.

I can't look at that year without seeing That Man Waving His Shirt Around. :cry: #mindbleach :-(

[Sir C]

"The league table doesn't lie" is an old saying which is widely seen as a wise reminder that at the end of the season you are where you should be.

ACLF wrote today:

"We finished second because Tottenham imploded; we all know that. Whether you admit it is another matter."

Well, that is true, but does it imply that we didn't really finish second? No, but it might impy that we didn't deserve to finish second. Many of us would agree with that. If so, does the league table lie after all? Or maybe bend the truth a bit?

We finished second because Spurs collapsed. Fact. But why did Spurs collapse? Is it because there are 38 games in a season, and not 34, and they expended so much energy in the 34 that they had nothing left in the tank at the end? It certainly looked like that with the half a Spurs side that cost Woy Hodgson his job. If a bloke charges off to the front in a 1500m race and then collapses in the last 200, and gets overtaken, then that's down to not pacing himself for the distance.

There are too many question marks in this post but I can't be bothered to rewrite it just to try and express the point more eloquently. But my point is a question. Does the league table lie or not? If not, then maybe we shouldn't be making excuses for Spurs to remind ourselves how crap we are. And the manager is. Because if it was the other way round, we wouldn't be making excuses for ourselves.

Whether or not the league table lies depends on how one defines the question we ask of it. I suppose we generally assume the answer given is to the question, 'Who is the best team in the league?', whereas, in truth, the only question being answered is, 'Who is the most successful team after 38 league games?', which isn't necessarily the same thing at all.

[Pat Vegas]

"The league table doesn't lie" is an old saying which is widely seen as a wise reminder that at the end of the season you are where you should be.

ACLF wrote today:

"We finished second because Tottenham imploded; we all know that. Whether you admit it is another matter."

Well, that is true, but does it imply that we didn't really finish second? No, but it might impy that we didn't deserve to finish second. Many of us would agree with that. If so, does the league table lie after all? Or maybe bend the truth a bit?

We finished second because Spurs collapsed. Fact. But why did Spurs collapse? Is it because there are 38 games in a season, and not 34, and they expended so much energy in the 34 that they had nothing left in the tank at the end? It certainly looked like that with the half a Spurs side that cost Woy Hodgson his job. If a bloke charges off to the front in a 1500m race and then collapses in the last 200, and gets overtaken, then that's down to not pacing himself for the distance.

There are too many question marks in this post but I can't be bothered to rewrite it just to try and express the point more eloquently. But my point is a question. Does the league table lie or not? If not, then maybe we shouldn't be making excuses for Spurs to remind ourselves how crap we are. And the manager is. Because if it was the other way round, we wouldn't be making excuses for ourselves.

The problem is with Spurs being the rival we are we get too caught up on that. I'd rather ignore them completely. We did finish above them and we didn't finish 2nd. 2nd would be called an improvement from the previous season. However when the team in 1st place is Leicester city that tells it's own story.

[SWv2]

"The league table doesn't lie" is an old saying which is widely seen as a wise reminder that at the end of the season you are where you should be.

ACLF wrote today:

"We finished second because Tottenham imploded; we all know that. Whether you admit it is another matter."

Well, that is true, but does it imply that we didn't really finish second? No, but it might impy that we didn't deserve to finish second. Many of us would agree with that. If so, does the league table lie after all? Or maybe bend the truth a bit?

We finished second because Spurs collapsed. Fact. But why did Spurs collapse? Is it because there are 38 games in a season, and not 34, and they expended so much energy in the 34 that they had nothing left in the tank at the end? It certainly looked like that with the half a Spurs side that cost Woy Hodgson his job. If a bloke charges off to the front in a 1500m race and then collapses in the last 200, and gets overtaken, then that's down to not pacing himself for the distance.

There are too many question marks in this post but I can't be bothered to rewrite it just to try and express the point more eloquently. But my point is a question. Does the league table lie or not? If not, then maybe we shouldn't be making excuses for Spurs to remind ourselves how crap we are. And the manager is. Because if it was the other way round, we wouldn't be making excuses for ourselves.

I don’t think there is any real definition about league placings beyond 1st = Champions and 18-20 = Relegated.

Finishing second doesn’t equate to being the second best team in the league. What if your placing above another is goal difference, you banged in a load one day against an opposition who were having a bad day perhaps, they only conceded 2 a different day against the side you topped.

I agree 100% with the assertion that we only finished second because of Spurs implosion. I can’t recall the specifics of how they did it but 1 point from 4 games or something, the battle of the Bridge and all that.

From what I saw of them last year I thought they were better than us – superb defence, best on form striker of the year maybe, a very functional midfield partnersip. But they ****ed up, hilariously for us.

I actually thought they were probably the best side in the league. But they weren’t, that was Leicester apparently.

p.s. ACLF – probably the best daily Arsenal read out there??

[Burney]

"The league table doesn't lie" is an old saying which is widely seen as a wise reminder that at the end of the season you are where you should be.

ACLF wrote today:

"We finished second because Tottenham imploded; we all know that. Whether you admit it is another matter."

Well, that is true, but does it imply that we didn't really finish second? No, but it might impy that we didn't deserve to finish second. Many of us would agree with that. If so, does the league table lie after all? Or maybe bend the truth a bit?

We finished second because Spurs collapsed. Fact. But why did Spurs collapse? Is it because there are 38 games in a season, and not 34, and they expended so much energy in the 34 that they had nothing left in the tank at the end? It certainly looked like that with the half a Spurs side that cost Woy Hodgson his job. If a bloke charges off to the front in a 1500m race and then collapses in the last 200, and gets overtaken, then that's down to not pacing himself for the distance.

There are too many question marks in this post but I can't be bothered to rewrite it just to try and express the point more eloquently. But my point is a question. Does the league table lie or not? If not, then maybe we shouldn't be making excuses for Spurs to remind ourselves how crap we are. And the manager is. Because if it was the other way round, we wouldn't be making excuses for ourselves.

It may not be definitive, but t's simply the only meaningful benchmark we have.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

Teams try and finish as high up as they can. It's nonsense to suggest Spuds gave up on second. We ended above them because we did better than they did over 38 games. Period.

[Pat Vegas]

Teams try and finish as high up as they can. It's nonsense to suggest Spuds gave up on second. We ended above them because we did better than they did over 38 games. Period.

I love it when you go all american.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

I love it when you go all american.

You should see me when I go Greek.

[Ash]

Whether or not the league table lies depends on how one defines the question we ask of it. I suppose we generally assume the answer given is to the question, 'Who is the best team in the league?', whereas, in truth, the only question being answered is, 'Who is the most successful team after 38 league games?', which isn't necessarily the same thing at all.

:nod: The second question is more succinct, and perhaps therefore meaningful as it directly addresses the aim - to win. Points make prizes and all that. The first question is basically subjective, and the answer can be the team people would rather watch rather than the won who one the league.

[Ash]

I don’t think there is any real definition about league placings beyond 1st = Champions and 18-20 = Relegated.

Finishing second doesn’t equate to being the second best team in the league. What if your placing above another is goal difference, you banged in a load one day against an opposition who were having a bad day perhaps, they only conceded 2 a different day against the side you topped.

I agree 100% with the assertion that we only finished second because of Spurs implosion. I can’t recall the specifics of how they did it but 1 point from 4 games or something, the battle of the Bridge and all that.

From what I saw of them last year I thought they were better than us – superb defence, best on form striker of the year maybe, a very functional midfield partnersip. But they ****ed up, hilariously for us.

I actually thought they were probably the best side in the league. But they weren’t, that was Leicester apparently.

p.s. ACLF – probably the best daily Arsenal read out there??

Best side for 34 games, perhaps. And as Sir C said, 'best' and 'most succesful' can be different questions. The thing about Spurs though that I would emphasis is that perhaps much of the quality you were admiring was because they over-exerted themselves, which I suggest was largely responsible for their collapse.

I think daily football blogging must a bit of a curse really for their poor buggers who have committed themselves to it. Obviously Monty would have Views on such people, but I respect their efforts. Having to find x00 words every day all summer on 'why have we not bought the players we need yet?' must be hard work. ACLF is probably the best read even if Arseblog is a better writer.