General Premier League Thread 2018-19

Gbear

Man Utd

gimli2112 wrote: »

The only side I don't see this happening to is City. I know they had a bad result against Wolves but Wolves rode their luck to get the draw. The bigger sides are going to need take points of City. I know Liverpool beat them last year but really off the back of a crazy 5 minute spell and they still almost equalised at the death.

At the same time, the score in the other game was heavily influenced by a sending off, and Liverpool also beat City 5-1 on aggregate in the CL, and totally contained their attack.

I think there's only one game this season where City aren't going to be favourites and that'll be against Liverpool at Anfield.

I think Liverpool are probably the most likely team to top the top 6 mini league this season. These games can be a bit anomalous from season to season and I can see them being far more mean in defence this time around.

However, putting away teams on the regular was a weakness last season, and making up that big scoring gap to City will be perhaps the biggest struggle.

It took City a few games to get going last season as well, scoring 5 in 3 games, including some late ones, and drawing to Everton, but in the 5 after, including against Liverpool, they scored 24 and conceded 2.

StringerBell

gimli2112 wrote: »

The only side I don't see this happening to is City. I know they had a bad result against Wolves but Wolves rode their luck to get the draw. The bigger sides are going to need take points of City. I know Liverpool beat them last year but really off the back of a crazy 5 minute spell and they still almost equalised at the death.

United beat them too. At City, delaying their parade.

Who was the other team? There was another one wasn't there, everton maybe?

But yeah, all teams drop points they shouldn't. City did it better than anyone last season and I don't see who is going to really challenge them this season.

Agent Coulson

Chelsea

City only lost two in the league last season.

Liverpool & Man U.

StringerBell

Agent Coulson wrote: »

City only lost two in the league last season.

Liverpool & Man U.

Could have sworn they lost another, they drew with Everton then maybe....

I can't be arsed checking, cheers.

blueser

Man Utd

StringerBell wrote: »

Could have sworn they lost another, they drew with Everton then maybe....

I can't be arsed checking, cheers.

We lost at Anfield (3-4) and at home to utd (2-3). We drew at home to Everton (1-1), away at Palace (0-0), away at Burnley (1-1) and at home to Huddersfield (0-0).

And those two defeats still annoy the fcuk out of me!
:mad:

Turtwig

Anfield is your bogey ground so I can understand that. That United game should have been over in the first half.

Still, every team will have slip ups.

Agent Coulson

Chelsea

And Palace through away a win missing the penalty.

blueser

Man Utd

Agent Coulson wrote: »

And Palace through away a win missing the penalty.

Yep; that is true. On the other hand, we threw away the win at Burnley (the Sterling sitter, anyone?).

blueser

Man Utd

Interesting article listing the most expensive transfers in the PL, with the fees adjusted to today's money;

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11662/11490165/most-expensive-premier-league-transfers-in-todays-money

Shevchenko the "most expensive", using their formula, followed by Shearer and Ferdinand. Hve to say, I've never heard of "Totally Money" before.

BullBlackNova

Man Utd

blueser wrote: »

Interesting article listing the most expensive transfers in the PL, with the fees adjusted to today's money;

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11662/11490165/most-expensive-premier-league-transfers-in-todays-money

Shevchenko the "most expensive", using their formula, followed by Shearer and Ferdinand. Hve to say, I've never heard of "Totally Money" before.

Totally Money are a credit broker, according to their own site. Odd that they are involved in something like this but probably trying to boost their profile by getting picked up by all the sports sites. Given that the graphics have Sky's logo on them too, though, I would reckon it was a commercial partnership behind the scenes.

Paul Tompkins, a Liverpool blogger/writer, has been doing this for years. Very similar workings.

Here is his 2016 edition: https://tomkinstimes.com/transfer-price-index-top-100-premier-league-buys-after-inflation/ It was the most recent full working I could see on his site. I'm not a member of the site though so he may have more up to date figs than that.

It definitely does leave you scratching your head when you see the values of the likes of Sean Wright-Phillips or Andy Carroll.

Most of the top signings have at least been successful, though. The few that weren't really stick out - Veron, Shevchenko, Di Maria, etc.

Also, Graeme Le Saux being the most expensive left-back as per their metrics is absolutely nuts.

GavRedKing

Man Utd

Attendances have always been fluffed up by clubs.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/45158878

West Ham: Newham council says the average attendance at West Ham was 42,779 based on the 12 games it attended - which is 12,530 fans fewer than the club's season average figure of 55,309.

Manchester City: Greater Manchester Police's average figures were 7,482 lower than club figures, again based on 12 games.

Southampton: Hampshire Police figures were an average of 4,246 fans lower than figures issued by the club.

Tottenham: Brent Council says crowds at Wembley Stadium were on average 3,740 less than the club's stated numbers.

Chelsea: Hammersmith and Fulham council says its average was 3,505 fans lower than club numbers, based on six games.

Watford: Hertfordshire Police says its average was 2,602 fans fewer than club figures, based on four games.

Manchester United: Trafford Council and Greater Manchester Police both said United's published attendance figures matched its own, based on 12 games.

Club (% of capacity) FOI (% of capacity) Difference (% of capacity)
West Ham 55,309 (97%) 42,779* (75%) 12,530 (22%)
Man City 53,274 (97%) 45,792* (83%) 7,482 (14%)
Southampton 29,906 (92%) 25,660 (79%) 4,246 (13%)
Tottenham 61,843 (69%) 58,103 (65%) 3,740 (4%)
Chelsea 40,593 (98%) 37,088** (89%) 3,505 (8%)
Watford 20,319 (95%) 17,171*** (80%) 2,602 (15%)
Man Utd 73,575 (98%) 73,575* (98%) 0 (0%)

West Ham's biggest difference in figures was 17,523 fans for the home game against West Brom on Tuesday, 2 January 2018. The official attendance was 56,888 but the council said it was 39,365.

The Hammers' matches against Chelsea and Arsenal in December had a discrepancy of 11,953 (56,953 - 45,000) and 14,721 (56,921 - 42,200) respectively.

Manchester City's largest discrepancy was 15,277 for the visit of Southampton on Wednesday, 29 November 2017 (53,407 compared with 38,130).

For games over the festive period, there was a difference of more than 9,000 fans for City's games against Bournemouth (54,270 - 44,406) and Watford (53,556 - 44,207).

But there was still a difference of 8,687 (54,214 - 45,527) for the 4-1 win against Tottenham on Saturday, 16 December; 4,218 (54,286 - 50,068) for the 3-1 victory against Arsenal on Sunday, 5 November; and 5,524 (54,172 - 48,648) for the 5-0 win over Liverpool on Saturday, 9 September.

Tottenham's largest discrepancy was 8,686 (55,124 - 46,438) for the game with Brighton on 3 December.

Strangely, there were five matches at which Tottenham's published number of tickets sold was lower than the council's attendance figure. There were between 16 and 104 more people in the stadium than the club accounted for. That included the Premier League's record attendance of 83,222 for the north London derby on 10 February 2018. The actual attendance was 83,290.

Four of the six Chelsea matches that Hammersmith and Fulham Council attended were European games where the difference ranged from zero for their last-16 Champions League tie against Barcelona on 20 February (attendance 37,741) to 5,222 (41,150 - 35,928) for their group game against Qarabag on 12 September.

For two Premier League fixtures the difference was 6,345 (41,364 - 35,019), for the visit of Tottenham on 1 April, and 3,096 (41,324 - 38,228) for West Ham a week later.

Chelsea did not want to comment on the differences reported but Trizia Fiorellino of the Chelsea Supporters' Group rejected the Premier League figures. It is also understood attendances are capped at a lower level for European games and to make room for TV equipment.

Hammersmith and Fulham Council said they collated the figures in liaison with the club.

At Southampton, who only achieved Premier League survival on the last day of the season, the biggest discrepancies came towards the end of the campaign, according to Hampshire Police.

The Saints said their attendance for Chelsea's visit on 14 April was 31,764 but police figures show 6,945 fewer fans at St Mary's. There was also a difference of 6,799 (31,778 - 24,979) for the home game against south-coast rivals Bournemouth.

At Watford, only four attendances were obtained via Hertfordshire constabulary - for home games against Liverpool, Brighton, Manchester City and Arsenal.

But in each case, fewer fans attended than were advertised - amounting to an average discrepancy of 2,602 per game. The biggest difference was for Brighton, amounting to 3,568 (20,181 - 16,613).

Quazzie

Man Utd

GavRedKing wrote: »

Attendances have always been fluffed up by clubs.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/45158878




Club (% of capacity) FOI (% of capacity) Difference (% of capacity)
West Ham 55,309 (97%) 42,779* (75%) 12,530 (22%)
Man City 53,274 (97%) 45,792* (83%) 7,482 (14%)
Southampton 29,906 (92%) 25,660 (79%) 4,246 (13%)
Tottenham 61,843 (69%) 58,103 (65%) 3,740 (4%)
Chelsea 40,593 (98%) 37,088** (89%) 3,505 (8%)
Watford 20,319 (95%) 17,171*** (80%) 2,602 (15%)
Man Utd 73,575 (98%) 73,575* (98%) 0 (0%)

I would've been very interested to see real figures against published figures in the few games just before Wenger announced his departure at Arsenal. The clubs were announcing near full grounds, when it was obvious there was many thousands of empty seats

Deise Vu

Man Utd

Clubs are always counting tickets sold even if the patron doesn't turn up. I don't understand though, where the various council's are getting their figures from that could be so accurate as to say there were 78 more at Spurs / Arsenal than the official attendance (83,290 V 83,222)?

GavRedKing

Man Utd

Theres been a couple of games where Chelsea announced near sell outs and there would be a pocket of empty seats.

citytillidie

Deise Vu wrote: »

Clubs are always counting tickets sold even if the patron doesn't turn up. I don't understand though, where the various council's are getting their figures from that could be so accurate as to say there were 78 more at Spurs / Arsenal than the official attendance (83,290 V 83,222)?

Maybe clubs have to report the real figure to the local councils

Deise Vu

Man Utd

citytillidie wrote: »

Maybe clubs have to report the real figure to the local councils

What possible motive would justify reporting 78 fewer attendees out of a crowd of 83K?

Crash Bang Wall

Lukker- wrote: »

In the least shocking news ever, City have been handed a boost and KDB is going to be back significantly earlier than expected. He made the trip to Barcelona to see Dr. Cugat and now he's ready to take the next step in his rehab
MEN

They done it with Jesus last year too....add on a few weeks, and then the player is back early.

If City say a player is out for 3 months, they mean 2

Harry Palmr

Man Utd

I see Harry the Hornet, Watford mascot has been retired. I think we all know Roy why.

ERG89

Harry Palmr wrote:

I see Harry the Hornet, Watford mascot has been retired. I think we all know Roy why.

I hope he turns up to the next Palace game dressed up as an Owl and starts up on Roy

paulbok

Man Utd

Deise Vu wrote: »

What possible motive would justify reporting 78 fewer attendees out of a crowd of 83K?

Health and safety. They probably have to report the exact numbers of people in the ground each game for emergency planning. Also may be needed to conform to planning.

GavRedKing

Man Utd

https://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/premier-league/everton-face-potential-points-deduction-over-marco-silva-tapping-up-when-he-was-at-watford-37315616.html

Scare mongering IMO.

Very worse Everton will get is a fine, it looks like Watford are holding out for a big pay off, especially if its true that they turned down £12m from Everton for Silva before it all turned to pot.

BullBlackNova

Man Utd

GavRedKing wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/premier-league/everton-face-potential-points-deduction-over-marco-silva-tapping-up-when-he-was-at-watford-37315616.html

Scare mongering IMO.

Very worse Everton will get is a fine, it looks like Watford are holding out for a big pay off, especially if its true that they turned down £12m from Everton for Silva before it all turned to pot.

Sure it even says that in the piece. Total clickbait headline. Can they be hit with a points deduction? Yes, but they won't be.

It is understood that the most likely scenario, should Everton be found guilty in what has been an acrimonious dispute, will be compensation being paid to Watford.

Liverpool

Seems like a footballer could be in a world of trouble.

15 years old, and an allegation that he changed his story.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/09/12/premier-league-footballer-charged-raping-schoolgirl-france/

ricero

Chelsea

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Seems like a footballer could be in a world of trouble.

15 years old, and an allegation that he changed his story.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/09/12/premier-league-footballer-charged-raping-schoolgirl-france/

Seeing a lot of rumours that its a defender who plays for a top 6 side.

GavRedKing

Man Utd

I've seen circumstantial evidence that points towards a LB.

A twitter post about his time in France and the ages would match up to what I seen.

Loafing Oaf

Man Utd

Harry Palmr wrote: »

I see Harry the Hornet, Watford mascot has been retired. I think we all know Roy why.

Mascots behaving badly is one of my favourite things in football. Never get tired of this:

dr.kenneth noisewater

Man Utd

GavRedKing wrote: »

I've seen circumstantial evidence that points towards a LB.

A twitter post about his time in France and the ages would match up to what I seen.

Seen that as well and he was supposedly on preseason and not holidays like the player accused

Lucas Hood

Man Utd

ricero wrote: »

Seeing a lot of rumours that its a defender who plays for a top 6 side.

I've heard it's a striker off a team that was promoted last season..

Trigger

Man Utd

I heard it's Harchester United's star midfielder Didier Baptiste

StringerBell

dr.kenneth noisewater wrote: »

Seen that as well and he was supposedly on preseason and not holidays like the player accused

Well, you see, that would pose a problem for a narrative. Unless drinking in tents in holiday camps is part of some pre season routine?

Agent Coulson

Chelsea

Leicester getting hammered 3 down at half time.

Mushy

Man Utd

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Leicester getting hammered 3 down at half time.

Some fools like me predicted their relegation too early

Agent Coulson

Chelsea

Rafa won't be around much longer at Newcastle I'd guess.

ERG89

Agent Coulson wrote:

Leicester getting hammered 3 down at half time.

Rudi Garcia back in the must win bracket next week then I take it

Harry Palmr

Man Utd

and down to 10 men which should have been the case sooner - Wes Morgan off but McGuire should have walked in the first half.

Gbear

Man Utd

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Rafa won't be around much longer at Newcastle I'd guess.

Their opening 5 games have included games against City, Chelsea, Spurs and Arsenal.

It'd be madness to make any decisions off the back of that.

It's hard to say how they're going to get on as things stand, but they'll seriously struggle to stay up if Rafa leaves and it would be an incredible feat to attract a better manager than him to such a disaster of a club.

Mr.Nice Guy

Chelsea

Don't think Eddie Howe gets enough credit. Job he's done at Bournemouth is incredible.

Sanity_Saviour

Southampton

Chelsea in crisis

Sanity_Saviour

Southampton

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Rafa won't be around much longer at Newcastle I'd guess.

How can anyone make this statement after 5 games. Modern football chat is nuts

Agent Coulson

Chelsea

Sanity_Saviour wrote: »

How can anyone make this statement after 5 games. Modern football chat is nuts

That the point isn’t it Modern football doesn’t give most managers time especially in the premier League.


It’s all about staying in it for basically the other 14 clubs outside the top 6.

rob316

Chelsea

Not to mention any other manager they get would be vastly inferior. No one half decent is going to want to work under Ashley.

ERG89

This is the most full I've seen Vicarage Road in some time. Then again Watford's form hasn't been this good since they've been promoted but just shows the difference a bit of stability makes there.

Harry Palmr

Man Utd

Watford in crisis!

x43r0

Man Utd

Why is there relatively no talk of Chelsea as title challengers?

They've started perfectly but anything I read is all City vs Liverpool

Harry Palmr

Man Utd

Chelsea could be challengers but are perceived to be a work in progress I suppose and a bit open at the back.

PS what happened to Football Focus 2 on Sundays?

eigrod

Chelsea

x43r0 wrote: »

Why is there relatively no talk of Chelsea as title challengers?

They've started perfectly but anything I read is all City vs Liverpool

They are contenders, and probably stronger contenders than Liverpool and most Liverpool fans will admit that. They were champions the season before last and have Hazard. Could take 95+ points to win League this season.

ERG89

x43r0 wrote:

Why is there relatively no talk of Chelsea as title challengers
They've started perfectly but anything I read is all City vs Liverpool

Liverpool made a European final last season, brought in players and they are expected to push on this season. Chelsea on the other hand are very hard to judge at the start of a season as they are a bit boom or bust. Sarri was late coming in too.
Neither has really been challenged as it's VERY early in the season so there has been little forced rotation or injuries. European football hasn't even started, nor the domestic cups for these sides not to mention the busy Christmas period.
Putting City in the title picture is self explanatory they have well earned their favourites tag.

rob316

Chelsea

Chelsea with their experience are more realistic challengers than Liverpool. The upcoming league cup and league games between the two will tell alot. City, Chelsea and Pool look head and shoulders above the rest of the league but it's very early days.

IncognitoMan

Liverpool are the 2nd favourite for sure. Think there's a lot trying to play down their chances in case it goes wrong.

Put simply this is the best Liverpool side the PL has seen, they need to produce.

Loafing Oaf

Man Utd

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Liverpool are the 2nd favourite for sure. Think there's a lot trying to play down their chances in case it goes wrong.

Put simply this is the best Liverpool side the PL has seen, they need to produce.

Better than the Benitez side that finished second a decade ago, only losing two games all season? Big call...