theHotHead wrote:jayramfootball wrote:theHotHead wrote: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 ......
HH,
I think you have fallen into the trap of agreeing with anything that suits the Arteta bad angle to the point where you are defending the indefensible.