Arteta Sack-O-Meter

[jayramfootball]

In 70-71 we won the league with 65 points, nowadays it’s takes around 90.

In those days football wasn’t as high pressure, didn’t have as much money in it and wasn’t as professional, the comparisons don’t stand up because it’s a completely different era, everything was completely different, it just doesn’t reflect modern football at all.

It was 2 points for a win then 1 for a draw
We won 29 drew 7
94 points in today’s money
Another example of jumping to slag Arsenal with no research

You cannot make a points adjustment and compare with current day, it doesn't work. Look at Italy, the style of football they played when they had 2 points for a win changed when they converted to 3 points for a win, so the style of football back then was completely different, that has to be taken into account. Also, the old First Division had 22 teams, the Premier League has 20 teams now.

JHC what a reach!
So when it was 2 points for a win it was comparable to 3 points for a win ???? Give over.
As starman said, 65 points then is 94 in today's money. No ifs or buts, just mathematically the case.
22 teams vs 20 teams - sure.. equates to 85 points with 4 less games.
Point being is that we started the first 6 games with the equivalent of 9 points in today's money, including a 1-0 win vs Huddersfield, and won the league.

1-0 wins are always excellent results, especially away form home. Was then. Is now. End of story.
It is both ridiculous and pathetic to be moaning about how much we won a game by.

[Salibatelli]

In 70-71 we won the league with 65 points, nowadays it’s takes around 90.

In those days football wasn’t as high pressure, didn’t have as much money in it and wasn’t as professional, the comparisons don’t stand up because it’s a completely different era, everything was completely different, it just doesn’t reflect modern football at all.

Who's going to tell him?

You feeling ok?

[jayramfootball]

In 70-71 we won the league with 65 points, nowadays it’s takes around 90.

In those days football wasn’t as high pressure, didn’t have as much money in it and wasn’t as professional, the comparisons don’t stand up because it’s a completely different era, everything was completely different, it just doesn’t reflect modern football at all.

Who's going to tell him?

You feeling ok?

Yes, I just finished laughing.

[Salibatelli]

In 70-71 we won the league with 65 points, nowadays it’s takes around 90.

In those days football wasn’t as high pressure, didn’t have as much money in it and wasn’t as professional, the comparisons don’t stand up because it’s a completely different era, everything was completely different, it just doesn’t reflect modern football at all.

Who's going to tell him?

You feeling ok?

Yes, I just finished laughing.

Don’t be too harsh on yourself, I don’t think you can help posting some of the stuff you do.

[jayramfootball]

In 70-71 we won the league with 65 points, nowadays it’s takes around 90.

In those days football wasn’t as high pressure, didn’t have as much money in it and wasn’t as professional, the comparisons don’t stand up because it’s a completely different era, everything was completely different, it just doesn’t reflect modern football at all.

Who's going to tell him?

You feeling ok?

Yes, I just finished laughing.

Don’t be too harsh on yourself, I don’t think you can help posting some of the stuff you do.

Now I know why you spout so much crap. You think 2=3.
Just so eager to hear more from you about how winning is bad. Definitely another 2=3 moment

[Salibatelli]

In 70-71 we won the league with 65 points, nowadays it’s takes around 90.

In those days football wasn’t as high pressure, didn’t have as much money in it and wasn’t as professional, the comparisons don’t stand up because it’s a completely different era, everything was completely different, it just doesn’t reflect modern football at all.

Who's going to tell him?

You feeling ok?

Yes, I just finished laughing.

Don’t be too harsh on yourself, I don’t think you can help posting some of the stuff you do.

Now I know why you spout so much crap. You think 2=3.
Just so eager to hear more from you about how winning is bad. Definitely another 2=3 moment

Don’t worry pal, we’ll be losing soon enough under this guy, because unfortunately that’s what happens when people put their faith in managers who don’t have a clue.

Your stats won’t mean a lot when he eventually gets the boot!

[jayramfootball]

In 70-71 we won the league with 65 points, nowadays it’s takes around 90.

In those days football wasn’t as high pressure, didn’t have as much money in it and wasn’t as professional, the comparisons don’t stand up because it’s a completely different era, everything was completely different, it just doesn’t reflect modern football at all.

Who's going to tell him?

You feeling ok?

Yes, I just finished laughing.

Don’t be too harsh on yourself, I don’t think you can help posting some of the stuff you do.

Now I know why you spout so much crap. You think 2=3.
Just so eager to hear more from you about how winning is bad. Definitely another 2=3 moment

Don’t worry pal, we’ll be losing soon enough under this guy, because unfortunately that’s what happens when people put their faith in managers who don’t have a clue.

Your stats won’t mean a lot when he eventually gets the boot!

I guess you live in hope.

[theHotHead]

Jay, lets liken this to F1, when the points were 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 there wasn't a big spread in points which so no point taking big risks to get an extra 2 points, for example. Losing 2 points as the championship leader with a decent lead means no need to push. Now the points system is 25, 18, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, 1, there is more reason to push.

Same sport, different eras, different ethos. You can't tell me the mindset and gameplan now is the same as it was. In fact, the very reason the Italian FA changed to 3 points for a win was to make Italian football more attractive and less defensive.

How can you say it doesn't matter ot its no different?!

[jayramfootball]

Jay, lets liken this to F1, when the points were 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 there wasn't a big spread in points which so no point taking big risks to get an extra 2 points, for example. Losing 2 points as the championship leader with a decent lead means no need to push. Now the points system is 25, 18, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, 1, there is more reason to push.

Same sport, different eras, different ethos. You can't tell me the mindset and gameplan now is the same as it was. In fact, the very reason the Italian FA changed to 3 points for a win was to make Italian football more attractive and less defensive.

How can you say it doesn't matter ot its no different?!

In your example, it would make it harder to win because teams were taking less risks... but we won 29 matches.
So if anything it was harder then but we still won a lot.

Regardless of that it is utterly foolish to make a comment that winning the league now takes 90 or so points and only 65 then as a way to diminish or 70/71 double year. Obviously - there were only 2 points for a win.

The fact still remains - we got 9 points from our first 6 games in 70/71 during which we beat Huddersfield 1-0. Not a soul cares that we only beat Huddersfield 1-0. As it happens, if we had drawn with Huddersfield instead we'd have NOT won the league. Beating Huddersfield 1-0 was a great result, just like beating Burnley is a great result (more so because it was a must-win). People are not stupid HH.. there were a bunch of Arsenal fans lining up to eviscerate the club had we not won... the same people that are droning on about... 'yeah but it was only Burnley' now.
Some people will never be anything other than miserable shits.

[theHotHead]

Thats not my point, my point is you can't transpose the numbers and compare with numbers from a different era, because it doesn't work. In the old days you could get a lead and just defend, if you lose the lead you only lose one point. If you do that now, you lose 2 points, so makes going for more goals more of an advantage. So that dictated the football that was played. So happens we scored 70 something goals in that 1970-71 season, but my argument remains the same.

[jayramfootball]

Thats not my point, my point is you can't transpose the numbers and compare with numbers from a different era, because it doesn't work. In the old days you could get a lead and just defend, if you lose the lead you only lose one point. If you do that now, you lose 2 points, so makes going for more goals more of an advantage. So that dictated the football that was played. So happens we scored 70 something goals in that 1970-71 season, but my argument remains the same.

I'm sticking to the simple fact that getting 65 points in 1970 is the equivalent of getting a lot more points in modern times - after 2 points for a win became 3. That is fairly obvious.

3 points for a win was introduced to try and get teams to go for wins.

Man City won the title last year with 27 wins from 38 games - 71% win rate
The invincibles had a 68% win rate
Arsenal 70/71... 69% win rate.
Leicester won it recently with a 61% win rate

Sto trying to support some weird claim that because title winners have 90+ points these days that it somehow lessens the 70/71 achievement because they 'only' got 65. That is horsecrap. The person who made that laughable claim probably didn;t even know there used to be only 2 points for a win and made the comparison in blissful (but predictable) ignorance.
Moreover winning 1-0 in this league has always been a good result and a great result away from home - as ANY win is.

[VCC]

Spoilt fan base

Win is a win, as i have said i would rather win ugly than lose,
We now have a section of fans who want to play like 70s Brazil every game as long as they see that seem happy to lose.
There is a-lot to be said winning games playing shit football, it shows character. But i am a realist the two games we have won have been at best against week opposition.
Happy its derby week we will learn a-lot about our character

[Salibatelli]

Completely wrong, we’re sick of seeing rubbish football defeats and narrow wins, you’re claim about spoilt fans is way off the mark and after 15+ years of not challenging to call the fans spoilt is ridiculous.

Arteta for most of his time here has had us lose lots, play poor football and delivered mostly wins that are hard work, people are sick of it.

It’s more the fact every game is hard work than the winning the game 1-0.

[theHotHead]

Thats not my point, my point is you can't transpose the numbers and compare with numbers from a different era, because it doesn't work. In the old days you could get a lead and just defend, if you lose the lead you only lose one point. If you do that now, you lose 2 points, so makes going for more goals more of an advantage. So that dictated the football that was played. So happens we scored 70 something goals in that 1970-71 season, but my argument remains the same.

I'm sticking to the simple fact that getting 65 points in 1970 is the equivalent of getting a lot more points in modern times - after 2 points for a win became 3. That is fairly obvious.

3 points for a win was introduced to try and get teams to go for wins.

Man City won the title last year with 27 wins from 38 games - 71% win rate
The invincibles had a 68% win rate
Arsenal 70/71... 69% win rate.
Leicester won it recently with a 61% win rate

Sto trying to support some weird claim that because title winners have 90+ points these days that it somehow lessens the 70/71 achievement because they 'only' got 65. That is horsecrap. The person who made that laughable claim probably didn;t even know there used to be only 2 points for a win and made the comparison in blissful (but predictable) ignorance.
Moreover winning 1-0 in this league has always been a good result and a great result away from home - as ANY win is.

Jay, you are blinded by Ozim rage LOOOL. I'm not supporting Ozim's argument, I don't agree with it, all I said is you can't compare the 2 eras because the points system was different and that dictated the style of play. Ozim clearly didn't realise that there were 2 points for a win back then, but, like you, he has dug his heels in and won't admit he is wrong.

Come on Jay, admit it, you and Ozim are pretty bloody similar. In fact .. I wonder if you and Ozim are the same poster, just trying to bring drama to the forum ......

[Salibatelli]

All I said was that his point about what happened in some games in the 70s was irrelevant to today and I stand by that.

I didn’t know about the 2 point thing admittedly so I was wrong there, but it doesn’t change the point I was making.

Star man brought up how we won a couple games 1-0 in the 70s.